第二语言习得研究UnderstandingSecondLanguageAcquisition

1 第二语言习得研究 Understanding Second Language Acquisition SLA 研究综述 早期的 SLA 研究 一、早期第二语言习得研究产生的原因 二、早期第二语言习得研究的起点 三、早期第二语言习得研究的范围 早期 SLA 产生的原因： 对比分析面临挑战 按照对比分析假说，如果学习者的母语与第二语言相似，将促进第二语言的习得；如果二者不同，将阻碍第二语言的习得这种观点认为，学习者产生的偏误主要是母语习惯负迁移的结果 （乔姆斯基（1958）对行为主义学习理论的批判以及母语习得的研究结论，给对比分析假说提出严峻挑战） 母语习得研究的结论表明， 儿童母语习得并不是母语习惯获得的过程， 而是构建母语的“心理规则”的过程； 证据是： 儿童母语习得并没有表现出与父母言语的一致性 这不符合行为主义刺激——反映的学习理论； 这些挑战创造了对第二语言习得进行实证研究的氛围 改进 L2 教学的需要 按照听说法或情景教学法， 教师在课堂的主要任务是严格按照编排好的语言结构， 向学习者提供语言输入； 此外，要严格控制学习者的语言输出，以减少学习者的语言偏误 但是，儿童、成人第二语言学习者的自然习得并没有这些严格的控制，仍然能够成功地获得第二语言。

于是，学者们试图弄清楚下列问题： 1.第二语言学习者是怎样在自然环境获得第二语言的？ 2.第二语言学习者运用了哪些策略？ 3.为什么有的学习者成功获得第二语言，有的学习者则不能？ 这些问题的回答需要对第二语言习得进行实证调查研究 早期 SLA 研究的起点 1.第二语言习得研究发端可以追溯到 20 世纪 60 年代末 2.在第二语言习得研究领域，学者们大都把以下两篇文章看作是这个学科建立的标志 Corder（1967） “The significance of leaners’ errors” ，Selinker（1972）“Interlanguage” 如果我们把 Corder 和 Selinker 的文章作为这个学科的发端， 那就意味着在第二语言习得研究不包括“对比分析” Lightbown (1985：173)曾经指出： “这个研究领域是一个新领域，如果我们排除 50 年代和 60 年代所作的工作， 即所谓 ‘预防性对比分析’ ， 那么， 这个领域的历史还不到 20 年 ” 我国学者王初明（2000:F14）认为： “对比分析研究语言的外表差异，即外部语言，严格说来，不是当今研究者们所定义的二语习得研究。

” 我们认为， “对比分析”不属于第二语言习得研究的主要原因在于：第二语言习得研究是关于学习者语言系统的研究 “对比分析”不关心学习者的语言系统 早期 SLA 研究的范围 早期第二语言习得研究主要是关于学习者的语言系统的描写  2 Ellis（1994：43）认为，早期的第二语言习得研究包括：1.学习者的偏误研究；2.学习者语言发展模式研究；3.学习者的语言变异研究；4.学习者语言的语用特征研究 “对比分析” 虽然不属于第二语言习得研究的范围， 但是对第二语言习得研究具有重要的影响对这一理论的了解有助于对后期理论的深刻理解 SLA 研究现状 二语习得研究作为一个独立学科，大概形成于 20 世纪 60 年代末、70 年代初，迄今已有40 年的历史与其他社会科学相比，二语习得研究是个新领域，大都借用母语研究、教育学研究或其他相关学科的方法（Larsen-Freeman & Long 1991） 在过去 40 年中，二语习得研究的方法不断发展变化，对该领域的研究起着重要的推动作用 SLA 研究的理论框架 二语习得研究涉及三大领域： （1）中介语研究； （2）学习者内部因素研究； （3）学习者外部因素研究。

每大类中又包含若干小类的研究对象，除了三个领域内的因素外，各大类之间的关系和各小类之间的关系也是研究的重点 学习者外部因素研究：社会环境，家庭环境，学校环境，课堂环境，教学方法 学习者内部因素研究：语能/智力/年龄/性别，动机，策略，风格，个性普遍语法，母语水平，二语水平 学习结果=中介语研究 语言能力 语用能力 （以上三者互相联系） SLA 研究的领域和方法 中介语研究 中介语研究标志着二语习得研究作为独立研究领域的开始，主要涉及两类： （1）语言能力研究， （2）语用能力研究 1.语言能力研究 早期对语言能力的研究，由于受乔姆斯基理论的影响，主要集中在语法规则的习得上，例如 Dulay & Burt（1974）的系列词素习得顺序的研究20 世纪 80 年代末、90 年代初，人们开始重视词汇的习得，成果逐渐增多，例如二语作文中词汇知识的变化、词汇的丰富性的研究（Laufer & Nation 1995） ，被动词汇和积极词汇之间的关系的研究（Laufer & Paribakht 1998） ，阅读中词汇知识的广度与深度的关系的研究（Qian 1999）等；20 世纪90 年代后期，学习者语料中单词的使用特点研究（Altenberg & Granger 2001） 。

以上各类语言能力研究均深受认知心理学的影响，大多数情况下采用量化法 2.语用能力研究 Kasper & Rose（2002）系统地描述了语用能力研究所用的不同方法语用能力研究借用了多种人文科学的研究方法，例如，描述语言学、会话分析、互动社会语言学、人种志/微变化分析、发展语用学、认知——社会心理学、话语阐释和跨文化交际学这些方法包容性很强，一方面运用逻辑实证主义倡导的实验法和问卷法了解二语学习者语用能力的整体情况对比分析假说 错误分析假说 中介语假说  3 （如 Rose 2000） ，另一方面运用构建主义所倡导的个案研究等质化方法来详细描写特定社会文化背景中的语言交际行为（如 Bardovi-Harlig & Hartford 1993） 学习者内部因素 从研究目的来看， 学习者内部因素的研究可分为两大对立的阵营 一个强调研究学习者的共性特征，一个强调研究个体差异揭示共性特征的研究包括基于普遍语法的研究、母语迁移研究和语内迁移研究 基于普遍语法的研究基本上采用实验法， 运用语法正误判断测试来考察被试者的语言能力 母语迁移的主流研究方法也是以量化为主， 最常见的是用相关分析来界定母语与目标语的关系（Jarvis 2000） 。

个体差异研究集中在某一类学习者内部因素上，例如语能、动机、学习策略、学习风格、个性的研究；或某两类因素的关系上，例如研究动机与学习策略的关系、学习风格与学习策略的关系等；也可以集中在某类学习者内部因素对中介语发展的影响，例如普遍语法、母语、已学过的二语知识对二语学习结果的影响 总体上说，上述各类研究中，量化研究占主导地位，如语能研究采用了典型的心理测量方法（Skehan 1998） ；动机研究通常采用问卷法（Masgoret & Gardner 2003） ；对动机与二语成绩关系的研究采用相关分析（如 Dornyei 2003 ） ；对学习风格的研究，有的采用心理测试，有的采用问卷法（如 Reid 1995） ；个性特征（如焦虑感、容忍含混度等）的研究也广泛使用了问卷法与统计分析（如 Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope 1986） 对学习策略的研究，研究方法的使用稍稍复杂 早期策略研究通过访谈、 观察了解二语学习成功者的学习行为 （如Rubin 1975） ，但到 20 世纪 80 年代末、90 年代初，绝大部分策略研究都使用问卷调查学习者采用的策略，再通过相关分析探究学习策略与二语成绩之间的关系（如 Hsiao & Oxford 2002） ，也有少数采用质化研究法，例如有声思维个案研究（如 Vann & Abraham 1991） 。

学习者外部因素 学习者外部因素包括社会环境、家庭环境、学校环境、课堂环境和教学方法从现有的实证研究来看，单纯的外部因素研究几乎没有人们对学习者外部因素的兴趣点有两个一个是发现它们对学习者内部因素的影响， 例如社会环境对学习者动机的影响， 教师设计的学习任务对学习者策略的影响； 另一个兴趣点是探究它们对中介语的影响 有的研究某一类外部因素对中介语的影响； 有的分析某些外部因素对中介语发展的综合影响； 也有的考察交际情景对中介语变异的影响Norris & Ortega（2000）总结了自 1980—1998 年以来教学方法对中介语发展的实证研究， 发现这类研究采用的几乎全是实验法， 即通过实验组和对照组的比较， 来判断某种教学方式的有效性 研究交际情景对中介语变异的影响会更多地运用质化分析法，例如 Tarone & Liu（1995）对一个中国男孩跟踪研究了 26 个月，仔细分析了这个男孩与教师、与研究者、与同学这三种不同情境中语言使用的变异情况 SLA 研究在中国（两方面） 二语习得概念进入中国 桂诗春 （1979） 把的乔姆斯基的 Language Acquisition Device 译为 “ 语言习得机制” , 并指出“ 研究第二语言的学习已经成为心理语言学的一个重要课题。

” 许国璋（1981）介绍了美国的第二语言研究近况,同时, 对作为第二语言的英语和作为外国语的英语进行了区分 他认为 “ 凡是在英语为主流语言的环境进行的他语人英语教育, 即是作为第二语言的英语教育；凡是在非英语环境中的他语人英语教育,即是作为外国语的英语教育 ” 1983 年《国外外语教学》第 3 期登载了一则简讯, 向国内通报了 Krashen 的著作《第二语言习得和第二语言学习》 这标志着“ 第二语言习得”首次完整地出现在国内的学术期刊上此后,胡文仲在《外国语》1984 年第 1 期发表的“语言习得与外语教学——评价Stephen D.Krashen 关于外语教学的原则和设想”一文，是国内学者发表的介绍二语习得理 4 论的第一篇文章，标志着二语习得研究在我国的正式起步他指出“ 成年人发展外语能力依靠两个途径, 一是下意识地自然吸收, 类似幼儿学母语,不知不觉地就学会了语言学会语言规则也同样是不知不觉的, 但只是获得某种语感而已 这个过程称为语言习得 第二个途径是有意识地学习语言规则的过程,这称之为语言学习只有语言习得能够使人们获得口语能力,获得流利程度,而语言学习只能起到运用规则进行‘监察’的作用。

习得比学习更重要 ” 至此,“第二语言习得”概念的意义被国内完全接受 中国 SLA 研究的历史分期和特点 萌芽期（1983——1989） 引进为主, 评介二语习得的基本理论 引进和评介集中在 70 年代及 80 年代初英美名家的力作如 Krashen 的习得理论、Corder 的错误分析理论、Selinker 的中介语理论等这一时期共发表论文 52 篇见表, 其中“译、编译、摘译、译介”的文章 27 篇评介类文章24 篇, 该类文章多采用首先介绍国外经典理论,然后引出对外语教学的启发为写作模式研究方法以思辩性为主（只有 1 篇量化文章） 其中《国外外语教学》占 30 篇, 是全部文章的60%, 该刊是名副其实的引进先锋桂诗春（1986）率先应用量化手段, 对“我国英语专业学生社会心理分析” 的研究, 结合二语理论对英语专业学生的学习动机进行了问卷调查孙骊（1989，1999）在“从研究如何教到研究如何学”系列文章中, 呼吁教学研究者改变研究方法和研究角度另外, 李瑞华（1989）的“ 听能训练在第二语言习得中的重要性”一文, 是二语理论与具体语言技能相结合的先例 成长期（1990——1999） 这一时期值得注意的三件大事是： 第一，九十年代初期,湖南教育出版社的“语言学系列教材”第一辑、第二辑先后问世,历时三载, 此后六次重印, 印数达 21000 册, 为普及语言学与应用语言学知识,促进语言学习与研究做出了贡献。

其中, 桂诗春与王初明等人是系统引进二语理论、探索中国学习者学习规律的先行者 第二,1993 年是二语理论的“量化研究年” 北有刘润清、吴 一安、蒋祖康等运用量化研究方法在《外语教学与研究》上发表了“中国英语本科学生素质调查报告” 系列文章南有徐盛恒、孟悦、桂诗春等在《现代外语》上竭力推广研究方法的文章, 形成南北呼应之势此后，桂诗春等（1997） 、刘润清（1999） 、高一虹（1999）等不断地推广研究方法, 促进了二语研究的科学化 第三, 从 1999 年起, 上海外语教育出版社和外语教学与研究出版社陆续推出《牛津应用语言学丛书》和《当代国外语言学与应用语言学文库》 它们反映了 20 世纪西方语言学及应用语言学研究的最高成就 其中关于二语理论研究的著作, 对我们了解和把握这一领域的动态和发展趋势给予了巨大的帮助 这段时期与八十年代相比, 更广泛地引进二语理论, 结合部分实证共发表文章 192 篇对西方理论的纯粹引进明显下降, 其中译介 22 篇, 仅占全部文章的 11.5%1994 年《国外外语教学》第 1 期开辟了“ 二语习得研究”专栏, 系统介绍 Ellis、Windowson 等人的研究。

评介类 127 篇, 占全部文章的 66.7%, 这说明当时的研究以思辩性研究为主，研究的范围在不断地扩展, 学习者的共同因素 119 篇,个体因素共58篇, 并逐渐形成一些研究焦点, 如学习策略研究 （吴增生1994， 文秋芳1995,秦晓晴1996, 文秋芳 1996a, 文秋芳 1996b,文秋芳 1996c, 章兼中 1996, 王立非 1998, 王文宇 1998, 吴霞等 1998）,和学习动机研究（文秋芳等 1996, 张文鹏 1998,华惠芳 1998） 与具体语言技能相结合的文章 13 篇, 与其他学科结合进行研究的文章 2 篇，采用量化方法进行实证研究的文章共 43 篇, 占全部文章的 22.9%, 说明量化研究手段已被越来越多的研究者重视；提出了较为深入的批评与反思荆增林（1991a.1991b）是国内第一位对国外二语理论提出质疑的人崔义平（1996）和王美媚（1996）的文章开创了把二语习得理论与语用学和文学相 5 结合的先例 繁荣期（2000 年以来） 《外语教学与研究》从 2000 年第 2 期开始, 不定期开辟了“第二语言习得”或“ 第二语言习得研究” 专栏,《外语学刊》在 2002 年第 2 期开辟“第二语言习得” 专栏,《现代外语》从 2003 年第 2 期也开辟了“二语习得与外语教学” 专栏,这些刊物纷纷开设“ 第二语言习得”专栏,说明它作为独立的学科已被国内认可。

这一时期特点为 1.点与面相结合, 研究的范围越来越广研究文章几乎覆盖 了当前国外二语习得研究的所有热点 2.对二语习得研究进行综述性研究的文章越来越多 3.与多学科相结合 4.定量研究不断攀升, 研究的手段越来越多样化 5.与中国实际相结合更重要的表现是中国学者的研究已不再完全借用国外的量表, 而是与中国学生的实际相结合如果把现在的研究与年代的同类研究比较, 那时主要借用国外的原始问卷, 而现在的研究者几乎都考虑了中国学生的实际情况 6.与国际接轨 Chapter Two The Role of the First Language According to Rod Ellis (1985:5), the study of language-learner language began with the study of first language. SLA research has tended to follow in the footsteps of L1 acquisition research, both in its methodology and in many of the issues that it has treated. It is not surprising that a key issue has been the extent to which SLA and L1 acquisition are similar or different processes. It has been mysterious and amazing since ancient times how a child learns his native language. It is well known that a small child’s mental abilities are rather limited in every way, and language contains extremely complicated structures and difficult rules of grammar and rules for communicative use. But there is no doubt that every normal child is able to master his mother tongue within three or fours years without professional teachers and specially designed textbooks. What is equally amazing is the fact that although children are exposed to different language input and brought up in different environments, each of them acquires almost the same grammar and rules of language in a very short time. Key Issues in L1  What is acquired in L1 acquisition, competence or performance?  Is comprehension equal to competence and production to performance?  Is L1 competence acquired through nature or nurture?  Is L1 acquired through imitation/practice or hypothesis testing?  Is language biologically based? I. Brief History of Modern L1 acquisition Research Modern research on child language acquisition dates back to the late 18th century when the German philosopher Dietrich Tiedemann recorded his observation of the psychological and linguistic development of his son. A century and a half, significant advances were made in the study of child language. Most of the studies carried out between the 1920s and 1950s were limited to diary like recordings of observed speech with some attempts to classify word types, and simply accounts of changes from babbling to the first word and descriptions of the growing vocabulary and sentence length. Most  6 observers regarded language development as a matter of imitation, practice, and habituation. It was not until the 1960s that the study of first language acquisition received a new major impetus largely because of the Chomsky’s revolution and the creation of the generative grammar. Researchers began to analyze child language systematically and tried to discover the nature of the psycholinguistic process that enables every human being to gain a fluent control of the complex system of communication. In a matter of a few decades some giant strides were taken, especially in the generative and cognitive models of language, in describing the nature of child language acquisition and the acquisition of particular languages, and in probing universal aspects of acquisition. Today hundreds of linguists and psychologists are studying linguistic, psychological, sociological and physiological aspects of first language acquisition. II. L1 Acquisition Theories: A Behaviorist Perspective L1 language acquisition theories can be roughly divided into two major groups: behavioristic and cognitive. The basic tenet of behaviorism is that human beings cannot know anything they have not experienced and children and adults learn language through a chain of stimulus-response reinforcement. Since one cannot look inside a living organism, one cannot observe its internal states. Hence one cannot know anything about them. Any statements one makes about internal states or processes are meaningless. The meaningful statements one can make about the organism concern what goes in (stimulus) and what goes out of it (response). The goal of behaviorists is to discover and create predictable relationships between stimulus and response. Since they regard language as a basic part of total human behavior, they try to explain L1 acquisition process in accordance with their basic tenet, focusing on the observable aspects of language behavior and their relationships or associations with the objects, events or states of affairs in the world. ➢ Imitation-reinforcement Theory (模仿-强化论) A behaviorist might consider effective language behavior to be the production of correct responses to stimuli. If a particular response is reinforced, it then becomes habitual, or conditioned. Children only produce linguistic responses that are reinforced 模仿——强化理论的主要代表人物有美国结构主义语言学家布龙菲尔德、 美国行为主义心理学家斯金纳等人。

布龙菲尔德（1933-1935 年间 ),在《语言论》一书中说明了一个简单然而可能是典型的使用语言的情景:“杰克和吉尔正沿着小路走,吉尔看见树上有一个苹果,因为感到饿了,就请杰克给她摘苹果；杰克爬上树,把苹果摘下交给她,接着她就把苹果吃了布氏认为, 这一行为过程是按照“剌激一反应”的公式进行的可以用公式 S-R 表示, S 是刺激，R 是受刺激所产生的外显行为 Skinner attempts to analyze language behavior by tracing the factors influencing this behavior. The factors are described in terms of stimulus and response. Language behavior can only be studied through observation of external factors. According to Skinner, verbal behavior is controlled by its consequences. When consequences (stimuli) are rewarding, behavior is maintained and is increased in strength and frequency. If consequences are punishing, or there is a lack of reinforcement, the behavior is weakened and eventually extinguished. In Skinner’s view, one important external factor in the language learning process is the frequency  7 with which a certain utterance is used in the child’s environment. When a child makes a certain sound by accident, which is similar to the speech sound in the child’ s native tongue, the parents or the people around the child reinforce it and thus the child language development begins. Children imitate the language of their environment to a considerable degree, and imitation is a strong contributing factor in the language learning process. The consequence of imitation will influence the language development of the children. In order to arrive at a higher level of language proficiency, reinforcement is needed. It is through this process of repeated reinforcement and expansion that the child acquires his native language. 美国心理学家阿尔波特在 1904 年提出了语言从模仿得来的观点。

美国心理学家班图拉用社会学习理论即模型模仿论解释儿童的语言学习,强调语言模式和模仿的作用他认为,儿童获得语言大部分是在没有强化条件下进行的观察和模仿怀特赫斯特和互斯托在 1975 年提出了“互相性模仿”的概念，认为儿童可以通过模仿获得语法框架,如男孩的鞋、男孩的狗、男孩的自行车,最后变成了语法性的框架“男孩的 x”,可以填写适合新语境的新词,或把模仿到的结构重新组合,产生新的结构 模仿——强化理论强化后天学习的重要性， 正确地反映了事物发展的一个侧面， 为语言教育可以促进语言发展提供了理论依据 The main problems with behaviorist theory 1．It failed to account for the abstract nature of language as a system and reduced language learning only to acquiring concrete performance and linguistic forms and structures. 2．It overemphasized the importance of performance and totally ignored the acquisition of competence as the key to successful L1 acquisition. 3． It did not explain the child’s ability to acquire language and creative use of language. 4． It failed to account for the child’s acquisition of complexity of meaning and above all, the child language development itself. 5． 无法解释剌激与反应之间的间接性和多样性 Criticisms of Behaviorist Theory of Language Acquisition Behaviorist theory emphasized the important and necessary roles of imitation, reinforcement, repetition and practice in the process of language acquisition. But the abstract nature of language shows that it not only contains verbal behaviors but an underlying and rule-governed system. First, in language acquisition, child often creates his own linguistic rules. The best example is that child overgeneralizes the grammatical rule of forming past regular verbs with “ed” and extends it to all irregular verbs and creates verbs like “goed, comed”, which are not the result of imitation of the adult’ s language. Child’ s generalization of rules indicates that he creates his own rules and has his hypotheses tested in his LAD. Secondly, what child acquires is abstract language system, i.e. competence rather than concrete performance to which he is exposed. There is no doubt that any sentence contains both a surface and a deep structure. Although sometimes, surface structures of the two sentences are the same, the meaning of the deep structures are completely different. For instance, John is easy to please. John is eager to please. The same surface structures and different meanings prove that a child can never understand the difference in meaning by imitating the two surface structures unless he goes deep into the underlying structures.  8 Thirdly, since language is difficult and complicated, a child has to learn its structures and build his communicative competence. Adults can never teach the communicative functions of the language to the child III. L1 Acquisition Theories: A Cognitive Perspective ➢ Innateness Theory (先天论) This theory, also known as the nativist approach, is represented by Chomsky, McNeil and Lenneberg. Chomsky attacked behaviorist theory of language learning and reasserted the mentalist view of first language acquisition. Chomsky stressed the active contribution of the child and minimized the importance of imitation and reinforcement. Nativists strongly held the fundamental assertion that language acquisition is innately determined, that human beings are born with a build-in device of some kind that predisposes us to language acquisition. The child is born with the innate knowledge of language. This innate knowledge, according to Chomsky, is embodied in a “little black box” which Chomsky called language acquisition device or LAD. Chomsky assumes that the LAD probably consists of three elements– linguistic universal, a hypothesis making device, and an evaluation procedure. The LAD has a number of linguistic universals, or universal grammar in store. It also has a hypothesis-making device, which is an unconscious process and enables the child to make hypotheses about the structure of language in general, and about the structure of language learning in particular. The hypotheses that the child subconsciously sets up are tested in its use of language, and continuously matched with the new linguistic input that the child obtains by listening to what is said in his immediate environment. This causes the child’s hypotheses about the structure of language to be changed and adapted regularly, through the evaluation procedure, and through a process of systematic changes towards the adult rule system. 乔姆斯基也承认外部环境对语言发展的作用；认为环境可以产生激发效应和塑造效应。

前者是指 LAD 的潜能必须在环境的作用下得到展开和显示,后者是指引导儿童以何种语言作为母语乔姆斯基强调指出,虽然环境有两种效应, 但它们只是促使先天语音系统的成熟,不是本质的和决定性的,没有任何理由认为,人的语言是后天获得的 This view of the language learning process stresses the mental activities of the language learner himself and strongly questions the relevance of such external factors as imitation, frequency of stimulus and reinforcement. A child learns not through imitation, but by creative hypothesis testing Utterances a child hears Utterances a child produces 1. Pass me the milk. 2. Give me the milk. 3. Get me the milk. 4. Want some milk. 5. Drink some milk. 6. Take the milk. 7. Taste the milk. 8. There is no milk. 9. Milk, over there. 10. Milk, please. 1. Mommy, milk. 2. Milk.  9 McNeill follows and supports Chomsky in an attempt to give adequate description of ALD by providing four substantial innate linguistic properties of language acquisition device: 1) the ability to distinguish speech sounds from other non-speech sounds in the environment; 2) the ability to organize linguistic events into various classes of grammar which can later be refined; 3) the knowledge that only a certain kind of linguistic system is possible and other kinds are not; 4) the ability to engage in constant evaluation of the developing linguistic system so as to construct the most simple possible system out of the linguistic data encountered. Lenneberg is another well-known nativist. He emphasized the biological prerequisites of language and tried to find biological foundations for Chomsky’s innateness hypothesis. He proposed that language is a species specific behavior and that certain modes of perception, categorizing abilities and other language-related mechanisms are biologically determined He named the early grammars of child language as pivot grammars（轴心语法）, which are largely the representations of the deep structures. pivot word My sock open word That horse Allgone milk Mommy cookie ➢ Contributions of Innateness Theory Nativistic theories of child language acquisition have made at least three important contributions to the understanding of the first language acquisition process. First, they accounted for the aspects of meaning, the abstractness of language, and the creativity in the child’s use of language. Secondly, they have freed L1 acquisition study from the restriction of the so-called scientific method of behaviorism and begun to explore the unseen, unobservable, invisible, abstract linguistic structures being developed in the child in the first language acquisition process. Thirdly, it has begun to describe the child’s language as a legitimate, rule-governed, consistent system. Psychological and linguistic experiments have found that one-week old babies can distinguish sounds in French from those in Russian. The reason that linguistic competence is based on human genes is asserted, and this finding seemed to support Chomsky’s hypothesis of LAD existence. 先天论的积极意义 先天论与外因论正好相反,强调了被外因论所忽略的一面。

无数研究事实证明,人类确实有一种与生俱来的语言获得机制，也是人所区别于动物的一个重要方面,这种特殊的机制正在被神经心理学和神经语言学的研究成果所揭示 先天论的缺陷 LAD 是一种虚构；语言规则体系的获得不能代替语义和语用知识的获得；语言能力受语言运用的限制；从另一个角度否定语言获得过程的主动性和积极性；忽视后天因素的作用, 也就否定了语言教育的必要性 ➢ Cognitive Theory (认知论) The cognitive theory, represented by Slobin, Piaget and Bloom, attempted to account for the linguistic knowledge of the child by a more general theory of cognitive development. Slobin suggests that language acquisition is in the same order with the conceptual  10 development of the child. In his opinion, cognitive development has great impact on the linguistic development, which, in turn, will affect conceptual formation. At the same time, however, Slobin points out that linguistic development lags behind the cognitive development, though the former mirrors the latter. Slobin has demonstrated that in all languages, semantic learning depends on cognitive development and that sequences of development are determined more by semantic complexity than by structural complexity. There are two major pacesetters to language development, involved with the poles of function and of form. On the functional level, language development is paced by the growth of conceptual and communicative capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of cognition. On the formal level, language development is paced by the growth of perceptual and information processing capacities, operating in conjunction with innate schemas of grammar. Piaget is another cognitive psychologist who made a renovation to the concept of children ’s development of language and thought. His study proved that the differences in thought between children and adults are of quality rather than quantity. According to him, language ability never develops earlier than cognitive ability. Man has two organizations, one is functional invariants, which determine how man and his environment react mutually and how man learns from environment. Another is cognitive structure, which is the outcome of the mutual reaction between functional invariants and environment. It is functional invariants that are the central part of language acquisition. Functional invariants include assimilation and accommodation. Many research findings proved that two facts are evident in the child language acquisition. 1. Children’s discovery of the association between the word and object does not enable children to recognize the symbolic relationship between the symbol and the symbolized. Word, for children, is not only a symbol, but also an attribute or a characteristic of an object. Children tend to master the exterior structure before the interior relationships between the symbol and the symbolized are established. 2. The discovery is not made all of a sudden. Rather, it is the advent of the critical point of the language discovery caused by series of complicated molecular changes over a long period. Child Language Development stages age characteristics Sensorimotor stage 感觉肌动阶段 From birth to age 2 这一阶段是思维的萌芽期，是以后发展的基础。

皮亚杰认为这一阶段的心理发展决定着未来心理演进的整个过程 Preoperational stage 前 运 算阶段 Egocentric stage 自我中心阶段 From age 2 to age 4-5 这一阶段又称前逻辑阶段，这时儿童开始以符号作为中介来描述外部世界，表现在儿童的延缓模仿、想象或游戏之中 Socialized communicative stage 社会交际阶段 From age 6 to age 7  11 Concrete operational stage 具体运算阶段 From age 7 to age 11 在这个阶段，儿童已有了一般的逻辑结构 Formal operational stage 形式运算阶段 From age 12 to age 16 此时儿童的智慧发展趋于成熟，思维能力已超出事物的具体内容或感知的事物，思维具有更大灵活性 Child Language Development Age Period Stage Stages of Language Development 0-2 months Pre-linguistic Crying Noises 2 month Cooing Non-discrete sounds 3-6 months Speech-like sounds 8-10 months Speech sounds 10-11 months Understanding 12 month Holophrastic Babbling One word sentence 18-24 months Telegraphic I,II Two/three-word sentence 2.5-3years Pre-school Patterned Speech Basic grammar 3.5-5 years Near-adult grammar 5-10 years School Full competence Now we can summarize the cognitive theory of FLA. Potential langauge ability has its biological basis which can be passed down from generation to generation. Human beings learn by means of functional invarients in nature. Individuals communicate with one another by using the language acquired through assimilation and accommodation. Individual development determines language acquisition. Before concepts are established, the baby’s utterance is only his repetition or imitation of adult’s utterance. It is only in this way that a baby acquires the capability of producing sounds acceptable in the language community. In the pre-intellectual period, a baby acquires exterior structure of a concept in the form of streams of sounds. He links the sound stream with an object without realizing the inner relationship between them. True concept does not appear until the inner reletionship between sound stream and the object is learned by the child. The formation of concept is the beginning of language acquisition. The internalized grammar of a child is different from that of the native language. Only through assimilation and accommodation does child’s grammar be gradually transformed into adult grammar. ➢ Implications of the two theories Three suggestions: 1. Of the various ways of conceptualizing the language acquisition process, the most satisfactory is one that takes both the linguistic knowledge and behavior of the child into account.  12 (McLaughlin 1978) 2. Language acquisition is dynamic process reflecting the child’s changing experiences with the linguistic and nonlinguistic environment. 3. It is a process which is not narrowly linguistic but includes besides phonological and synactic development the acquisition of communicative skills through interaction with social environment ➢ Definition of CA According to Fisiak (1981), there are two types of contrastive studies, theoretical and applied. Theoretical contrastive studies are language independent. They look for the realization of universal categories in two or more languages, giving an exhaustive account of the differences and similarities between them, providing an adequate model for their comparison, and determining their comparability. Therefore, theoretical contrastive studies belong to comparative descriptive linguistics. Applied contrastive studies are concerned not only with comparison and contrast of two or more languages to determine the differences and similarities between them, but also with the possible consequences for a given field of application. Another task of applied contrastive studies is the identification of probable areas of difficulty in learning another language. Therefore, applied contrastive studies, or contrastive analysis, belong to applied linguistics. IV. Contrastive Analysis (CA) ➢ Brief History of CA Contrastive analysis is a very old comparison method and it had been in use ever since translation came into being. It was not until the 1940s that CA was adopted as a special methodology in the field of applied linguistics and in the study and research of foreign language learning and teaching in particular. In 1941, Benjamin Whorf first used “Contrastive analysis” and was followed by many other linguists such as Charles Fries，and Robert Lado. It has been widely accepted that Charles Fries was the founder of modern contrastive linguistics and the earliest man to apply contrastive analysis to foreign language learning and teaching. It was Robert Lado who promoted the development of contrastive analysis as an important part of foreign language teaching methodology. In 1945, Lado published “Linguistics Across Culture”, in which he made systematic and detailed study of contrastive analysis Ever since CA was born, it has become very popular in linguistic research and foreign language teaching. But in the 1960s, with the creation and development of Chomsky’s transformational and generative grammar, CA received a lot of criticism. But in the 1970s, CA underwent rapid development. 1980s saw the publication of many academic papers and books on the subject of CA, out of which different schools of CA were formed, discussing the theoretical principles, operational procedures and models and its application in foreign language learning and teaching. In a word, CA has experienced rise and fall in its more than fifty years of development ➢ Basic Assumptions of CA Contrastive Analysis has both a psychological aspect and a linguistic aspect. The psychological aspect is based on behaviorist learning theory, and the linguistic aspect, on structural linguistics. Behaviorist learning theory emphasizes interfering elements of learning, claiming that interference means difficulty in learning. Structural linguistics provides the tools to  13 describe accurately the two languages in question, and to match those two descriptions against each other to determine the differences and similarities between them. （Rod Ellis，1985：23-27） 行为主义学习理论认为，学习一种新的语言，就是学习一种新的行为习惯。

在学习新的行为习惯的过程中，旧的行为习惯必然会对新的行为习惯的学习产生影响 对比分析的观点认为，L2 学习者学习第二语言所面临的主要问题是母语的干扰解决问题的方法，是将学习者的母语与其目的语进行系统的描写和对比目的是要预测学习者的难点，并作为编写教材的依据，以减少母语对目的语学习的干扰 Contrastive Analysis is based on the following four assumptions: 1) Second language learning involves overcoming difficulties in the linguistic system of the target language. 2) The main difficulties in learning a second language are caused by interference from the first language. 3) Contrastive analysis can predict, or at least account for, difficulties in L2 learning. 4) Teaching materials based on contrastive analysis can reduce the effects of interference and difficulties, and facilitate L2 learning. ➢ Two Hypotheses of CA The Strong Version of CA Charles Fries (1945) and Robert Lado (1957) proposed the strong version of the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Fries 的基本观点集中体现在他的著作“Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language”中。

He believed that the most efficient materials 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. Fries 上述观点表明：最有效的教材要建立在对学习者的母语和目的语进行科学的描写和仔细的对比基础之上Fries 强调，首先是对两种语言进行科学的描写，其次是在描写的基础上进行仔细的对比Fries 的观点被后来的对比分析的倡导者发挥到极致 Lado wrote in his “Linguistics Across Culture”, “in the comparison between native and foreign language lies the key to ease or difficulty in foreign language learning …Those elements that are similar to the learner’s native language will be simple for him and those elements that are different will be difficult.” 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 the culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student. Lado 作为“对比分析”的集大成者。

他的观点表明：对比分析的目的是预测和描写那些引起学习者困难，以及不会引起学习者困难的语言模式；他强调了系统对比的重要性，而且不限于两种语言系统的对比，还包括学习者的母语文化和目的语文化的对比但在当时，两种文化的对比并没有引起人们的重视 按照 Lado 的理论，对比分析假设主要包括三个方面： 1． 学习者学习第二语言的主要困难来自于母语的干扰； 2． 对比分析的任务就是把学习者的母语和他所学的目的语系统进行对比目的是预测学习者的难点； 3． 理想的教材应该建立在对比的基础之上，以减少母语干扰的影响 从上述假设可以看出： 1． 对比分析假设实际上反映了其倡导者对第二语言习得过程的一种理论假设  14 2． 这种假设反映了这些学者对第二语言习得过程的基本看法 3． 对比分析这些看法和假设都能够从行为主义学习理论那里找到合理的解释 强势说的其他观点 Banathy, Trager, Waddle (1966) 认为： 学习者的难点可以等同于学习者的母语、文化与其目的语、文化之间的差别 语言学家的任务：鉴别这些差别； 编教人员的任务：在差别描写的基础上编写教材； 外语教师的任务：把这些差别作为教学重点； 学习者的任务：学习这些差别。

The strong version of contrastive analysis dominated the foreign language teaching field for nearly two decades. But in the 1970s, it came under severe criticism. Wardhaugh (1970) believes this strong version to be quite unrealistic and impracticable. He points out two major problems with this version. The first problem is that this version puts very high demands on the linguists in that they should have available to them a set of linguistic universals formulated within a comprehensive linguistic theory. But in fact this is a demand which are in no position to meet. The second problem lies in the difficulty of an adequate procedure. Wardhaugh believes that the difficulties are formidable. In reality, no linguist has actually conform to the requirements of this strong version The Weak Version of CA The weak version requires that linguists only use the best linguistic knowledge available to them 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. This version starts with the evidence provided by linguistic interference and uses such evidence to explain the similarities and differences between the two languages. 区别与联系 The strong version emphasizes the prior prediction of difficulties in learning a second language. The weak version only recognizes the significance of interference across languages and tries to explain those difficulties. However, both versions agree the greater the differences between the two languages, the greater the difficulties. Some linguists held a totally negative view of CA and believes that CA could not broaden our perspective about the structures of language and serve as a discovery procedure seeking the relationships between language systems. Attitudes towards CA are then divided. Approaches of CA 1. Structural Approach This approach is adopted by Robert Lado, who contrasts and compares grammatical structures between the languages in a structurally way. Later it was widely applied in the grammar-translation method of language teaching. 2. Transformation-generative Approach This approach is based on Chomsky’ s TG, which emphasizes the surface and deep structure of language in contrast. In spite of the different surface structures of the two languages, they have the same deep structures and languages have universals Linguistic structure Chinese English  15 Surface structure 他买书。

他不买书 他买书吗？ 他在买书吗？ 他不买书吗？ 他不是在买书吗？ He buys books. He does not buy books. Does he buy books? Is he buying books? Isn’t he buying books? Is he not buying books? Deep structure NP+VP 3. Generative Semantic Approach This approach is adopted by Fillmore, who took one step further than the TG approach and shifted formal and structural contrast to semantic contrast. For example, the plural form of the English pronouns can refer to humans and animals at the same time. A lady who drops in a friend’s home with a kitten may ask like this, “May we come in?” The subject in this question not only refers to the lady herself but also her cat. There is no such usage of pronoun in Chinese. 4. Functional Approach This approach is adopted by Halliday, who emphasizes the communicative functions and contextual and social-cultural differences of languages. Therefore, different language aspects of languages are compared and contrasted from a functional perspective. For example, if the cultural differences between Chinese and English way of greeting are contrasted functionally, we find that the Chinese and Americans extend their greetings in different manner and with different sentences to fulfil the phatic functions. “Hello, how do you do?” “How are you?” “你上哪儿去？” “吃过了吗？” ➢ Procedures of CA 1. Description 2. Selection 3. Comparison and Contrast 4. Prediction （ Rod Ellis, 1985:） ➢ Applications of CA James (1988) discusses the applications of contrastive analysis to L2 learning and teaching. According to him, CA can be used in the areas as follows: 1. Prediction of Errors There are 4 things that CA can predict in foreign language teaching. First, what will cause problems; second, difficulty in L2 learning; third, errors that learners with a common L1 will make; and fourth, the tanacity of certain errors 2. Diagnosis of Errors It is important to know why certain errors are committed. CA can provide this kind of  16 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 had committed these errors provides the basis for the learner to monitor and avoid the same errors in the future. 3. Language Testing According to James, CA has three roles to play in testing. First it can carry suggestions about what to test. Secondly, it can show to what degree to test different L2 items. Thirdly, it can suggest how to test these L2 items. 4. Course Design CA can be used in three areas of course design: slection, grading and contrastive teaching. 5. Contrastive Teaching This involves presenting to the learner at the same time all the terms in the L2 sysytem in contrast with the corresponding L1 system. The system concerned may be grammatical, phonological, or lexical. 6. Teaching Method ➢ Criticisms of CA The criticisms of CA were of three major types. First of all, there were the doubts concerning the ability of CA to predict errors in language learning. The psychological and linguistic basis of CA is clearly defective, because it is based on behaviorism and structuralism. Secondly, there were a number of theoretical criticisms regarding the feasibility of comparing languages and the methodology of contrastive analysis. The strong version of CA is proved to be unfeasible, although the weak version is workable to some extent. Thirdly, there were doubts and reservations about whether CA had anything relevant to offer to language teaching. CA studies concentrated largely on grammatical aspects, the phonological level, the morphemic level and the syntactic level. There is practically little contrastive analysis above the sentence level, let alone the textual or discourse level. In addition, 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 princ Chapter Three Interlanguage and the Natural Route of Development Interlanguage (IL) I. Interlanguage 的缘起 SLA 研究的对象 SLA 研究的对象是第二语言“学习者的语言系统” 。

但是，这个语言系统既不是母语系统也不是目的语系统L2 习得研究关注的是“学习者语言系统”的规律 SLA 研究的目的 Cook（1993）认为，第二语言习得研究的目的有三： （1）对第二语言学习者的语言系统进行描写； （2）对第二语言学习者的习得机制进行解释； （3）第二语言学习者是怎样运用第二语言的 SLA 的研究领域 第二语言学习者的语言系统研究 第二语言学习者外在因素的研究 第二语言学习者内在因素的研究 对比分析假说  17 语言获得是刺激强化习惯——第一语言的迁移——正迁移， 负迁移——负迁移造成错误——对比结构异同预测学习难点——强化手段克服难点（母语干扰）——句型替换操练 70 年代，乔姆斯基对语言心理的研究，使行为主义心理学受到很大的冲击，认知心理学随之抬头以结构主义语言为基础的对比分析，受到了人们的怀疑人们发现外语学习中的偏误并不能完全准确地用对比分析的方法来预测、解释和分析，尤其在语法和词汇方面于是对比分析走向衰落 之后， 人们试图寻找一种新的心理语言学理论来研究第二语言学习者的言语行为和习得过程但是，要建立这样一种理论，必须明确两个问题： （1）究竟哪些是与第二语言习得相关的语言现象; （2）必须建立某种理论构念（theoretical construct）作为理论框架。

II. Interlanguage 理论介绍 中介语(interlanguage) 一词虽有多种译法,如语际语、过渡语、族际语、中间语、中继语,但其内涵不变,即指处于目的语和母语之间的结构上处于中间状态的外语学习者的独特的语言系统 20 世纪 80 年代以来, 中介语研究产生了许多新的理论模式尽管有些理论模式是在早期中介语理论的基础上发展起来的，如“可变能力模式” (Variable Competence Model, Eills 1994) 但是有些理论模式,如 Schumann(1978)的“文化适应模式”(the Acculturation Model)和Micheal Long(1983)的“言语输入与交互作用模式”(the Model of Input and Interaction)在理论和方法上与最初的中介语理论已有相当大的分别 和对比分析相比， 中介语这一理论构念的提出， 标志着第二语言习得研究理论的根本改变 第二语言习得研究由此走向科学的发展道路 与 L2 习得相关的语言现象 Selinker （1972） 认为， 只有那些有助于理解第二语言习得的心理语言学结构和过程的“行为事件”（behavioral events）才是与第二语言习得相关的研究对象。

通俗地说，与第二语言习得相关的语言现象，应该是那些与第二语言习得心理过程（processes）相关的语言现象（products） 理论框架的建构 要在繁杂的语言现象中明确第二语言习得研究的对象和范围， 必须建立某种“理论构念”作为理论框架 只有建立这样一种框架， 才能进一步澄清与第二语言习得研究相关的语言现象，才能建立关于第二语言习得研究的心理语言学理论所谓“理论构念”是指基于可观察的现象通过推论而获得的概念这种构念有助于言语行为事件的观察和分析 Corder 关于学习者语言系统的理论假设 学习者的“过渡能力” Corder （1967， 1971） 最初把学习者的语言系统看作一种 transitional competence 的表现所谓“过渡”是指学习者的语言系统不断地向目的语的方向发展 Corder 的观点基于这样一种假设：学习者的习得过程是一个由学习者的母语系统向目的语系统过渡的过程反映了“目的语中心”（TL－centered）的观点 按照这种假设， 学习者习得第二语言的起点类似于儿童习得母语最初阶段的“简单代码”（simple code） 这种简单代码随着习得过程的发展逐渐复杂化。

这一过程是一种“再建构”（restructure）过程复杂的结构不断地替换简单的结构，并不断地进行整合，逐渐接近目的语规则 Corder 从社会语言学角度定义中介语，称其为“过渡方言”（transitional dialect） ；从语言学的意义上讲，具有某些相同语法规则的两种语言，其中一种语言是另一种语言的变体，构成一种方言关系从这个意义上讲，学习者的语言也是一种方言 因为学习者此时的语言系统不属于任何一种社会群体，因此它不能算是一种社会方言， 18 是一种“特异方言” (idiosyncratic dialects) 具有不稳定性，因此可以称其为“过渡方言” Corder 关于学习者语言系统的基本观点  关于“失误”（mistake）与“偏误” (error)的观点  关于“输入”(input)与“吸纳”(intake)的观点  关于“内在大纲”的观点（built-in syllabus)  关于“假设检验”(hypothesis testing) 与过渡系统建构的观点 关于“失误”和“偏误”的观点 Corder 认为，“失误”与 performance 相关，是非系统性的。

偏误”则与 competence 相关，具有系统性区分这两个概念的意义：失误是偶然的、非系统性的这种描写对语言习得的研究是没有意义的 偏误反映了学习者现时的语言知识或过渡能力， 可以作为观察习得过程的窗口 关于“输入”和“吸纳”的观点 Corder 认为，“输入”是外部环境提供的语言材料，“吸纳”则是学习者实际吸收并准备加工的语言材料经过加工的语言材料才能“内化”成为学习者的语言知识Corder 将学习者所接触的语言材料称作“输入”(input)，将语言材料的吸收叫做“吸纳”(intake) 关于“内在大纲”的观点 所谓“内在大纲”是指学习者拥有的一种控制学习目的语规则的程序化的序列 这个序列并不因为外界因素（如教学序列）的影响而改变 教师如果不了解学习者的内在大纲， 在课堂教学中引入新的规则， 学习者还没有处于一种“预备”(ready)状态，便无法获得新规则 教师只有按照学习者内在大纲选择适当的切入点引入新规则， 学习才能获得成功 过早地引入应该在以后学习的规则似乎是浪费时间 假设检验与过渡系统的建构的观点 当学习者接触外在的言语输入时， 其内在的习得机制作为系统生成器便通过对输入信息的加工建立所谓“过渡的规则系统”。

当新的规则信息与目前的过渡系统不一致时，这种新的规则信息便反馈给系统生成器学习者的内在习得机制便像一个“小语言学家”一样引导过渡系统规则的更新 Nemser 关于学习者语言系统的基本假设 关于“近似系统”的定义 Nemser（1971）把学习者的语言系统描述为“近似系统”，即“学习者实际运用的偏离的语言系统”其定义包括 3 个含义： （1）学习者的“近似系统”是相对于目的语系统而言的； （2）学习者的近似系统是一个不断变化的动态系统；  19 （3）学习者母语系统是一种干扰源 学习者的“近似系统”是相对于目的语系统而言的也就是说，这个近似系统是以目的语为参照的Sharwood Smith(1994)认为，学习者的近似系统是一个不断演化的系统它使学习者越来越接近目的语系统，越来越远离源语言系统（the source system） 学习者的近似系统是一个不断变化的动态系统由于这个近似系统是以目的语系统为参照的，两个语言系统的差异必然会促使学习者不断地向目的语标准靠近另外，学习者不可能在瞬间接触到整个目的语系统， 他必须逐渐地加工和消化目的语规则， 由此推动近似系统向目的语系统靠近。

按照 Nemser 的看法，学习者的母语系统是一种干扰源母语的干扰使学习者的语言系统偏离目的语系统 学习者的语言系统， 相对于目的语系统， 实际上是一种“偏差”(deviant)，或者说是对目的语系统的背离 近似系统的本质 Nemser 认为，学习者的言语是一种模式化的语言系统的产物(patterned product)所谓“模式化的语言系统”，是就近似系统的内在结构的规律性和系统性而言的言外之意，学习者的语言系统不是杂乱无章的偶然事件，即使这种具有瞬间变化特征的语言系统依然是有规律可循的 近似系统的模式 Nemser 的实验研究表明，学习者的言语表现为一种系统的、有规律的固定模式这种模式化的言语主要表现在三个方面： 一是移民的言语模式； 二是模式化的个体方言； 三是学习者的洋泾浜 模式 许多英语比较熟练的德国移民经常把英语的辅音发成母语的辅音；如：将/sw/ 发成[šv] 许多说英语的匈牙利人经常在表数量的短语中省掉复数标记；如：three boy 个体方言主要是由实用的系统构成的如出租车司机、旅馆服务员以及酒吧服务员用于简单交际的语言主要特征表现为：有限的语法；有限的词汇；有限的语义功能 经常使用洋泾浜的是一些学语言的学生。

他们可以用目的语流利地交际，但并没有掌握基本的语言规则阿拉伯学生和教师对话的例子：学生：Same? (一样吗？)（这两个词发音方法一样吗？）教师：Same. (一样) 关于僵化现象 Nemser 发现了“僵化”现象他把这种僵化现象称作“稳定的中介系统” 或“永久的中介系统和次系统”（permanent intermediate system and subsystem） 主要表现在具有同样母语背景的学习者在理解和生成目的语时所出现的带有固定模式的错误 这种带有固定模式的错误构成了学习者的“洋腔洋调” Selinker 关于学习者语言系统的基本观点 中介语的定义 中介语可以看作从语言学上描写的数据， 即可观察到的语言输出……我们认为， 这种言语行为是高度结构化的在语言迁移的综合研究中，在我看来，我们不得不承认中介语的存在， 而且必须作为一个系统来对待， 而不是作为一个孤立的错误的集合来看待 之后， Selinker对中介语的定义做了一个简要的解释他认为，引文中的主要之点有二： 一是“学习者的可观察到的言语输出是高度结构化的”；二是中介语“必须作为一个系统来对待，而不是作为一个孤立的错误的集合来看待”。

关于“可观察到的语言输出”的解释  20 这个问题涉及到中介语这个概念的所指问题，即中介语到底是指 IL product，还是 IL process IL product:指实际可以观察到的学习者的言语行为或言语表达; IL process:指潜藏在学习者言语行为之后的心理过程 按照 Selinker 的观点，中介语是学习者特有的一种存在于客观外界的客体我们可以观察和测量学习者的言语行为（口语的或书面语的） 通过观察和测量，我们可以推断潜藏于中介语系统背后的学习者的心理过程 显然，Selinker 是把中介语看作 IL product，而不是 IL process 关于“高度结构化”的解释 所谓“高度结构化”，是指中介语内在结构的系统性而言的这种系统性主要表现在学习者的语言是以规则为基础的 学习者的言语表达建立在已有的规则系统基础上， 就像母语使用者将他的表达计划建立在内化的母语系统之上一样 中介语定义的基本含义 （1）中介语是与学习者的语言表达相关的言语行为系统； （2）中介语是一个高度结构化的系统； （3）中介语是一个独立的语言系统而不是彼此孤立的错误的混合体。

中介语的产生 Selinker 认为，产生中介语的认知过程有五种，它们分别是： 1.语言的迁移（language transfer） ； 2.训练的迁移(transfer of training) ； 3.第二语言学习的策略（learning strategies） ； 4.第二语言交际的策略（communicative strategies） ； 5.目的语材料的过度泛化（overgeneralzation） Selinker 对“语言迁移”看法 Selinker 认为，语言迁移可被看作是一个包括所有与跨语言影响（cross-linguistic influence） 有关的行为和过程的总的术语 也就是说， 语言迁移既可以表现为一种言语行为，也可以作为一种心理过程 作为一种言语行为，语言迁移可以表现在语音、词汇、语法和语用各个层面作为一种心理过程，语言迁移是建立在“语际识别”（interlingual identification）的基础上的 Selinker 发现，对语言迁移产生影响的语言知识，不仅仅是学习者的母语知识，还应该包括学习者先前已有的语言知识 最初人们对语言迁移的认识还仅限于母语或第一语言的影响。

后来人们发现， 对学习者的中介语产生影响的除了学习者的母语而外，还有其他语言知识的影响如学习者的第二，第三语言的影响 Selinker 强调，语言迁移的过程是一个选择过程，不是行为习惯的自动迁移Selinker同时认为，语言迁移是一个复杂的心理过程学习者在构建中介语系统时，母语知识的运用是一个高度选择的过程一般说来，当学习者的母语规则和目的语规则相似或相匹配时，可能会产生迁移但是，母语和目的语相似并不足以构成迁移的条件也就是说，并不是所有的母语规则都会产生迁移的现象，学习者是有选择的 Selinker 指出，“上百年来，人们对母语对第二语言学习产生影响的现象早已有所认识，而且认为，这种影响是最为实质性的影响现在人们一致的看法是，语言迁移，正像在对比分析的初期人们所认识的那样，不是一个‘或有或无’（all or nothing）的现象 不能夸大语言迁移的作用，同时也不能否认语言迁移的作用  21 训练迁移产生的原因： 一是，教师在教学中有意或无意地强调和练习某些语言规则而导致学习者生成“非目的语规则” ； 二是，教材所提供的训练方法过于强调某些规则而忽视了相对应的另一些规则 这种迁移现象的产生完全是由于外部因素造成的，与学习者内在的习得机制无关。

Selinker 对“目的语泛化”看法 泛化是指学习者将某一语言规则的用法扩展以至超越所能接受的范围 目的语规则的泛化显然是指第二语言习得过程中的泛化现象 ——What did he intended to say? ——Drive a bicycle Selinker 认为，目的语规则的泛化产生的原因大致有三： 一是错误的规则概括； 二是规则掌握得不完整； 三是不了解规则适用的条件 这三条原因对第二语言教师来说，具有一定的指导意义 Selinker 对“学习策略”看法 所谓学习策略是指学习者在用目的语进行表达遇到困难时， 试图解决所面临的学习问题而采取的策略 Selinker 指出，在跨语言交际情境中，学习者有一种倾向，即将目的语简化为一个比较简单的规则系统 *I am feeling thirsty. *Don’t worry, I’m hearing him. Selinker 对“交际策略”看法 学习者用目的语进行表达， 特别是由于语言水平的限制， 表达意义发生困难时采取某种策略以解决交际问题 It was_ nice, nice trailer, _ big one. I have many hundred carpenter my own. I was in Frankfurt when I fill application. Coulter (1986) 将这种现象归因于学习者的交际策略。

Selinker 提出的两个重要理论 1.中介语产生的心理机制 Selinker 认为，成年人学习第二语言有两个途径：一是成功的学习者可以通过重新激活语言习得机制，即 Lenneberg 所说的“潜在的语言结构”来获得第二语言；他们可以像儿童习得母语那样，把普遍语法直接转换成目的语语法但是，大多数学习者无法激活“潜在的语言结构” 二是，大多数第二语言学习者通过激活 “潜在的心理结构” (latent psychological structure)来获得语言 这种结构指的是一般的认知机制 成人第二语言学习者正是通过这种机制来获得第二语言能力 但是通过这种方式获得的语言能力是不完整的， 无法与儿童习得母语或第二语言所达到的水平相比 2.关于僵化(fossilization)的概念 所谓“僵化”，是存在于潜在的心理结构中的一种机制由于这种机制的存在，学习者无法达到中介语连续体的终点 他们会在语言习得的某个阶段或某个水平上停顿下来 一些非目的语规则一直保留在中介语系统中，从而使他们的语言水平停滞不前这种现象，无论学习者的年龄多大，一旦发生，即使是继续学习也无济于事  22 Selinker 等(1978)认为，僵化的产生既有内部因素也有外部因素。

外在因素，指社会环境对 SLA 产生的影响与目的语社团接触较少，或学习的动机减弱，便出现僵化现象内部因素，包括学习者对目的语社团的态度、心理距离以及年龄的限制等，这些因素也会导致语言的僵化 僵化(fossilization)原因分析——以中国学习者为例 内部因素 ➢ 年龄：当语言学习者到达年龄的关键期 (critical age) ，他们的 大脑缺乏可塑性，因而无法掌握某种语言特征，使目标语不能顺利习 得 ➢ 缺乏文化融合的愿望：由于不同的社会心理因素，学习者不再选择 学习目标语国家的文化传统 ➢ 学生自身英语语言知识的匮乏，缺乏根据语言环境作具体分析的能 力，学习策略不当，学习动机和态度欠端正，自我管理意识的淡薄等 外因分析 1.语言输入与输出之间的不平衡 在长期应试教育的模式下，“满堂灌”、“填鸭式”是主要教学手段，学生成了被动的语言接受者， 语言能力培养课成了书本知识灌输课， 英语课堂上学生所接触到的就是教师和教材提供的字面意义 因缺乏优质语言形式的输入， 学生只是盲目地按照单词出现的先后和老师所提供的例句学习和背诵单词， 对词汇的背景知识和文化意义了解甚少， 更谈不上对词语间的横向比较。

尽管背了大量单词，对原句含义却达不到真正理解，更难以在书面或口头表达中使用得体的表达方式当对词语的选择犹豫不决时，就倾向于用母语规则来表达，这无疑导致了石化的产生 2.英语学习中的负迁移 “迁移” (transfer) 这一术语来源于教育心理学理论，是指将学会了的行为从一种语境迁移至另一种语境，其中包括正向迁移 (positive transfer) 和负向迁移 (negative transfer) 在外语学习中，语言迁移 (language transfer) 会对另一种语言产生影响，正向迁移有利于语言学习， 但负向迁移由于用母语模式或规则而产生错误的或不合适的目的语形式， 所以对英语学习有干扰作用学习者在交际、阅读、写作中习惯借用本族语规则作为临时过渡手段，逐词翻译， 采用中文逻辑框架加上英文的语法规则 例如有学生把“谈恋爱”表达成 “talk love”, “红茶”说成 “red tea” ，让外国人不知所云 3.文化意识的缺乏 根深蒂固的母语文化形成了学生深层的心理积淀， 要想摆脱母语文化的影响用英语思维是件不容易的事，这也是为什么无论学习时间长短、学习水平高低，外语学习者都会在这方面出现这样或那样的错误。

如果学生缺少这方面的意识，就很难真正理解英语这门语言而由于文化的差异， 英汉两个民族的思维方式有很大的不同， 这种差异必然会通过语言形式体现出来例如在西方文化中，人们把 “fox” 看作是 “pretty and attractive” （美丽迷人） ，而在汉语中 “fox” 主要用来表示“狡猾”之意可以说，英语习得者在这种缺乏英语语言文化的环境中学习，其英语水平很容易停滞在一个较低的阶段，进而呈现石化状态 语音方面 由于中国民族众多，方言复杂，各地的学习者在发音方面各有特色，石化现象表现得很突出 例如， 在使用英语时不能分清 /n/ 、 /l/ 的发音； 不能区别长元音 [i:] 和短元音 [i] ，长元音 [u:] 和短元音 [u] 等；不能区别摩擦音 [f] 与 [v] ， [s] 和 [z] 等 语法运用方面 很多学习者在学了某些词语的基本用法后，遇到新的意义相近的单词时，就想当然地把 23 前者的用法来套用后者例如， “Somebody wants to see you.” 在这里，“想要做某事”用 “want to do sth” 的表达是正确的但当学习者遇到表示“想要”的另一种表达 “feel like” 时，就可能会出现 “feel like to do sth” 这样的错误。

语义方面 由于中国学生对西方文化缺乏了解，仅仅靠词汇表提供的汉语译义而记住的词汇与实物往往难以“对号入座”当用目标语进行表达过程中遇到不确定表达时，就习惯求助于母语，在母语中寻找翻译对等词 例如， 将“打开收音机 ( turn on the radio) ”说成 “open the radio” ，将“黄色书 (adult books) ”译为 “yellow books” 语用方面 语用与具体语境紧紧相连，词语的选用要视语境的正式程度而定，不可大词小用或小词大用例如，在一场十分正式的宴会上，如果对来宾或主人说 “Bottoms up!” 来表示“干杯 ! ”，这会让人觉得粗鲁，因为它的内涵意义是很不正式的此时，应该说“ Drink a toast to ” 中介语的特征 美国学者 C. Adjemian（1976） ①中介语具有可渗透性： 即组成中介语的规则并不是固定不变的， 可以受到来自学习者母语和目的语的规则或形式的渗透 ②中介语具有反复性： 中介语在向目的语规范的运动过程中， 并非是直线前进的， 它有反复，有曲折其表现为已经得到纠正的偏误重又有规律地反复出现 ③中介语具有系统性：即中介语是相对独立的语言系统，它具有一套独特的语音、语法和词汇规则体系。

④中介语具有可变性： 即中介语是不断变化的， 这种变化不是从一个阶段突然跳到下一阶段，而是不断的借助“假设－检验”手段，缓慢地修改已有的规则以适应目的语新规则的过程 Selinker, Ellis 和 Krashen 等人通过大量的实验研究指出: 第一, 中介语是从第一语言到第二语言的中间过渡形式 学习者所犯的错误可以说明他们在第二语言习得过程中所取得的进步; 第二, 中介语是学习者在第二语言习得过程中的必经阶段在这一阶段, 学习者头脑中所形成的关于第二语言的语法规则都是过渡性的, 只要有适时的、恰当的输入, 这些过渡性的语法规则就会向目的语方向发展在这个过程中, 学习者随着语法知识在自己头脑中的积累, 通过不断添加新的语法知识, 排除不正确的语法知识, 而不断重新组织构造大脑中已有的语法知识体系, 使之向目的语靠近 III. Interlanguage 理论评介 局限性 研究限于词素、句法方面，对语义和语用知识习得研究不够而且，根据词素研究来确定语言习得的顺序也不科学， 因为将学习者使用某一词素的标准性作为习得的标准并没有心理学证据作为支持 忽视学习者学习外语的自我标准 中介语研究以目的语作为参照系， 对学习者本人所参照的标准研究不够。

忽视中介语与其它语言变体的不同 研究的方法， 如纵向研究和交叉研究本身还有一些技术性的问题未能解决， 所得出的结论并不完全可靠 在 Selinker 看来，大多数学习者无法达到本族语者的语言熟练程度是因为他们过分依靠了潜在的心理结构或一般的认知机制， 未能充分利用普遍语法 只有按照普遍语法去习得外语，才有可能达到自然的熟练程度 Selinker 观点的致命弱点在于，他把外语学习过程完全等同于母语习得过程，习得的 24 程序是由普遍语法预定好了的，这实际上是把外语学习者和外语学习环境过分理想化了 现实的情况是：外语习得过程是一个极为复杂的心理过程学习者原有知识，不仅一般的语言知识，还包括具体的母语知识以及其他关于世界的知识，都对目的语学习过程产生影响一方面，新的知识在被吸收时要受到原有知识结构的限制，另一方面，新的知识一旦成为原有知识结构的一部分， 就必然引起原有知识结构的重组， 并影响今后其他新的语言知识的学习如此看来，外语学习过程是一种知识结构重组的过程重组的结果就是一种新的知识结构形成的过程，也就是一种重新创造 Error Analysis (EA) I. Birth of Error Analysis (EA) 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 in an informal and intuitive way long before the concept of error analysis came into being. It is new because as a new scientific technique based on psycholinguistics, it was developed in the late 1960s with the development of Chomsky’ s standard theory. Until then for two decades, the prevailing technique used in the study of errors of L2 learners had been contrastive analysis. CA stressed the interfering effects of the L1 on L2 learning and claimed that L2 learning is primarily a process of acquiring whatever items are different from the first language. It ascribed most errors to interference of the first language. But such a narrow view of interference ignored the intralingual effects of language learning among other factors. During the process of teaching and learning, teachers have found that interlingual errors only constitute a small portion of L2 learners’ errors, and that among many other factors, interlingual effects of language learning play an important role. CA which aimed to predict errors resulting from L1 interference failed to account for other types of errors. Along with the Chomskyan revolution and the birth of psycholinguistics, the focus in second language teaching shifted from the view of the teacher as the controller of language learning process towards a more learned-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 compatibility between their learning plan and the teachers’ teaching syllabus. II. Definition of EA In Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, error analysis is defined as “the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign language learners” (Richards, 1985). According to Corder (1981), who made the first arguments for the significance of learners’ errors in 1967, error analysis is a type of bilingual comparison, a comparison between learners’ interlanguage and the target language. It is a methodology of describing L2 learners’ language systems. He proposes two justifications for the study of learners’ errors. The first is pedagogical, which claims that a good understanding of the nature of errors is necessary before a systematic means of eradicating them can be found. The second is theoretical, which claims that a study of learners’ errors is part of the systematic study of the learners’ language, which is itself necessary to an understanding of the process of SLA. Error analysis aims to 1) find out how well the learner knows the second language; 2) find out how the learner learns the second language; 3) obtain information on common difficulties in second language learning; 4) serve as an aid in teaching or in the preparation and compilation of teaching materials.  25 Error analysis is distinguished from CA by examining errors attributable to all possible sources not just those, which result from the interference of the first language. Although EA and CA are not mutually exclusive, the EA can easily supersede the CA. It is apparent that only some of the errors a learner makes are attributable to the native language. Learners do not actually make all the errors that contrastive analysis predicted they should and learners from different language backgrounds tend to make similar errors in learning one target language. III. Basic Assumptions of EA In recent years, researchers and teachers have realized that second language learning is a creative process of constructing a system in which learners are consciously testing hypotheses about the target language from a number of possible sources of knowledge: limited knowledge of the target language itself, knowledge about the native language, knowledge about the communicative function of language, knowledge about language in general, and knowledge about life, human beings, and the universe. The learners, in acting upon the environment around them, construct a legitimate system of language in its on right. According to Brown (1987), error analysis is based on the following assumptions:  Human learning is fundamentally a process involving making errors, which form an important aspect of learning any skills or accepting any knowledge.  Language learning is like any other human learning and in the course of learning a second language, learners will produce ungrammatical or even ill formed utterances if judged by the generally accepted rules of the language they are learning. In this sense, L2 learning is trial-and-error process in nature, hence errors are a natural and unavoidable part of language learning.  Errors made by L2 learners can be observed, analyzed, classified, and described.（As Corder noted, “A learner’s errors…are significant in that they provide to the researcher evidence of how language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in the discovery of the language.” ）  In errors made by L2 learners lie some of the keys to the understanding of the process of second language learning. Therefore, L2 learners are not looked upon as procedures of malformed, imperfect language full of mistakes, but as intelligent and creative beings proceeding through logical, systematic stages of acquisition. VI. Procedures of EA Identification of Errors 识别错误 Description of Errors 描述错误 Explanation of Errors 解释错误 Evaluation of Errors 评估错误 Correction of Errors 纠正错误 V. Implication and Application of EA  EA is useful to the teacher. The study of learner’s errors yields valuable insights into the nature of L2 learning process, and provides teachers with systematic evaluation of students’ difficulties and feedback, and guidelines for error treatment in the classroom. As Corder (1967) noted “Errors provide feedback, they tell the teacher something about the effectiveness of his teaching materials and his teaching techniques, and show him what parts of the syllabus he has been following have been inadequately  26 learned or taught and need further attention.” EA furnishes teachers with information about the distance between what the learner has achieved and the goal to be reached. EA is useful to the applied linguists and psycholinguists. It provides feedback to theory, and evidence about the feasibility of the theory which in turn facilitates further research. They provide to the researcher evidence of how the target language is learned or acquired, what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language. Errors are indispensable to the learner himself, because we can regard the making of errors as a device the learner uses in order to learn. It is a way the learner has of testing his hypotheses about the nature of language he is learning. Therefore, error analysis has two functions, theoretical and practical. The theoretical aspect of EA is that it is part of the methodology of investigating the language learning process. The practical aspect lies in its function in guiding the remedial activities to correct an unsatisfactory state of affairs for the learner or the teacher. In short, error analysis yields insights into the language learning process which will eventually have direct relevance to the improvement of language teaching materials and methods. ➢ Application of EA According to Brown (1987), EA can be applied to foreign language teaching in four ways. 1. Correcting errors in the classroom. 2. Providing explanation. 3. Designing curricula and teaching materials. 4. Organizing remedial teaching. VI. Criticisms of EA Error analysis has been most successful in accounting for learners’ errors that can not be explained or predicted by contrastive analysis. It has succeeded in bringing the multiple sources of learners’ errors to the attention of the scholars and in raising the errors from the undesirable status to legitimate status in both teaching and research. However, this does not mean that it is a perfect technique. The weaknesses include methodological problems involving all stages of analysis and also, limitations in scope of EA. Focusing only on the errors which learners produce at a single point in time can only provide a partial picture. It takes no account of what learners do correctly, of development over time, and of avoidance phenomena. ➢ Confusion of error description and error explanation（错误描述与错误解释界限不清） This has to do with the process aspect of error analysis as well as its product aspect. Error description deals with the product of L2 acquisition whereas error explanation, which determines the origins of errors, deals with the process of L2 acquisition. The process of language acquisition involves the interaction of the learner’s internal processing mechanism with the external environment, whereas the product of language acquisition involves the learners’ verbal performance. While the product can be directly observed and described, the process can only be inferred. However, many reports on error analysis confuse the causes of errors and their description. This lack of distinction results in controversy in the development of criteria to describe different error types and in the formulation of theories to account for those errors. ➢ Lack of precision and specificity in the definition of error categories (错误范畴界定不够具体与准确) According to Dulay and Burt, there two different definitions of “intralingual errors”.  27 Richards defines intralingual errors as “those which reflect the general characteristics of the rule learning, such as faulty overgeneraliza-tion, incomplete application of rules, and failure to learn conditions under which rules apply”. But LoCoco holds that intralingual errors occur when L1 does not have a rule which L2 has, the learner applies an L2 rule, producing an error. ➢ Inappropriate use of simplistic classifications to explain learner’ s errors (错误解释分类过于简单化) In much analysis of errors, taxonomic formats are used to delineate sources of errors. This entails at least two assumptions. One is that a particular error has a single source. The other is that the specification of the sources of an error is a relatively straightforward descriptive task. However, neither is the case. If we accept the fact that language acquisition is an interaction between internal and external factors, then the same errors must have at least two major sources: one in the environment and one internal to the learner, and that multiple sub-sources can be delineated within these two sources. ➢ Too much attention to learners’ errors (过分关注学生错误) A frequently mentioned limitation is the EA fails to provide a complete picture of learner language. We need to know what learners do correctly as well as what they do wrongly. Although errors are indeed revealing of learners’ interlanguage process of L2 learning, teachers can become so preoccupied with noticing errors that the correct utterances in the second language go unnoticed. It is important not to lose sight of the value of positive reinforcement of clear, free communication. The diminishing of errors is an important criterion for increasing language proficiency, the ultimate goal of L2 learning is the attainment of communicative fluency in a language. ➢ Overstressing production data （过分强调语言使用） Production is useful to analysis and thus becomes the prey of researchers; but comprehension of a language is as important as production and comprehension data is equally important in developing an understanding of the process of L2 learning. Failure to capture L2 learning phenomena （无法找准学习难点） This limitation is substantive. EA focuses exclusively on what learners do and has no way of investigating avoidance. Error not necessarily coincides with the difficulty of the learner. A learner who for one reason or another avoids a particular sound, word, structure or discourse may be assumed wrongly to have no difficulty. The absence of error does not necessarily reflect native-like competence since learners may avoid the very structure that poses difficulty to them. ➢ Failure to provide a complete view of L2 acquisition over time (无法反映二语习得全过程) Most of the studies of EA are cross-sectional in nature, affording only a very static view of L2 acquisition. In many cases, little care has been taken to separate out the errors made by learners at different stages of development. As a result, EA has not proved very effective in helping us understanding how learners develop a knowledge of an L2 over time. Chapter Four Individual Learner Differences and Second Language Acquisition Age ,Intelligence and Aptitude ,Cognitive Style ,Attitude and Motivation ,Personality,How to Be a Good Language Learner? Age  28 I. Optimal Age for L2 Learning 20 世纪 50-60 年代，语言学家和脑科学家根据儿童与成人在语言习得的快慢和地道方面所表现出来的显著差异， 以及大脑相关部位的损伤对儿童和成人患者的语言功能所造成的不同影响， 同时又分析研究了历史上有关法国“阿韦龙野孩”及印度“狼孩”(Amala 和 Kamla)回归社会后学习语言的文献资料，提出了语言习得关键期假说(The Critical Period Hypothesis)。

该假说认为:在人的大脑发育成熟过程中，存在一个关键阶段，在这一阶段内，语言习得能够自然地、毫不费力地发生但在超过一定年龄之后，大脑不再具有这种处理语言输入的能力(Fromkin and Rodman，1983；Ellis，1999:296-297)最早提出这个观点的是著名神经外科医生 Penfield（1975）和 Roberts（1959） ，后为 Lenneburg 所接受并加以发挥，对语言学研究产生了巨大的影响 一个 10 岁儿童的大脑在重量和容量上已达成人的 95％，脑细胞间的神经纤维发育也接近完成只是因为狼孩长期脱离人类社会，大脑的功能得不到开发，智力也就低下从狼孩的故事可以看出，一个人的智力高低，并不完全取决于大脑的生理状态，而更多地受到后到成长环境的影响 法国阿韦龙野孩 我国曾对 6000 多名幼儿进行过实验研究， 也证实了幼儿的心理发展存在着“敏感期”或“最佳期”在相应的时期，幼儿学习某种知识和行为比较容易 * 语言学习的最佳期为 2～4 岁；* 3 岁的幼儿动手能力开始发展成熟； * 3～5 岁音乐能力开始萌芽；* 3 岁是学习自我约束，建立规则意识的关键期； * “坚持行为”的发展则为 4～5 岁阶段发展最为迅速； * 5 岁左右是幼儿掌握数概念，学习抽象运算和综合数学能力开始形成的时期； * 5 岁半是抽象逻辑思维萌芽期，是幼儿思维习惯开始形成的时期； * 6～8 岁是书面语言发展的最佳期； * 6 岁是创造性开始成熟的时期，其观察能力、社会组织能力、阅读能力和综合知识学习能力开始形成；同时，孩子的自我控制与坚持性也开始成熟，欣赏艺术和美感也开始萌芽； * 9 岁则是儿童初级哲学思维产生的时期。

Penfield 和 Roberts 是创立这一假说的先驱，但他们最初提出的是“最佳年龄” (The Optimum Age) 的概念，指出:语言习得的最佳年龄是在 10 岁以内，在此期间大脑保持了可塑性，但随着青春期的到来，可塑性开始消失，这是大脑左半球语言功能侧化(lateraization) 所造成的结果(Penfield, Roberts 1959) Lenneberg 则是第一个提出语言习得关键期假说的神经语言学家， 他说:仅由直接接触的方式而进行的自然语言习得， 只可能发生在语言习得的关键期之内， 这大约在 2 岁至青春期之间2 岁之前大脑尚未发育成熟，不可能进行语言学习，而到了青春期，大脑语言功能的侧化已经完成， 这就导致了自然语言习得所需要的大脑可塑性的丧失 正是这种由生理过程所决定的阶段， 解释了以下问题:为什么语言在青春期之后“必须有意识地去教和学,而且非下功夫不可”;为什么“在青春期之后学习语言,外国口音不容易克服”(Lenneberg 1967: 176)以上就是语言习得关键期假说的基本内容和理论基础这一假说首先是针对母语习得提出的，后来语言学家们把它引入了二语习得(包括外语学习) 的研究之中。

近年来，学习者的年龄对二语习得成就所带来的影响， 正受到外语界越来越多的关注 人的大脑左半球主要负责语言，而右半球不仅支配着对非语言声音及音乐旋律的感知，而且支配着视觉和空间技能认知功能和感知功能位于大脑的某一半球上被称为侧化 但是， 每个人左右脑的发育速度和水平都是不同的， 这导致大脑左右两半球偏性功能专门化发展的差异， 有的人在使用大脑时偏重于左脑，有的人使用大脑时偏重于使用右脑，就是说人的右脑或左脑有一侧比较发达，这种情况称为”侧化”，比较发达的一侧称为优势半脑 由于左右脑所司功能的差异，脑侧化能使人在某个领域中发挥特殊的才能， 也容易使人在某个领域建立优秀的业绩， 理性的左脑 29 侧化造就科学巨匠，右脑侧化则可能产生天才艺术家 On the question of an optimal age for second language learning, one of the views is based on the opinion that young children, exposed to another language, seem to acquire this language rapidly and without much effort. The belief was derived from the observations on the effect of the brain damage on speech in children and adults rather than based on direct evidence of the greater effectiveness of early language learning. Penfield and Brown argued that the child’s greater ability to learn a language could be explained by the greater plasticity of its brains. According to them, the optimal time to learn a language is between the ages of 4 –10. Further theoretical support for early language learning could be derived from another theory, the “nativist” view of first language acquisition firmly advocated by Chomsky, Lenneburg, McNeill and others in the 1960s. They regarded the years before puberty as a biologically active period of language development. Another more plausible explanation for early language learning was developed by Piaget (1963). According to him, the critical period of language development is the period of concrete operations, i.e. after the “sensorimotor stage” of the earliest years, and before the “period of formal operations” at adolescence. Against the various claims that early childhood has special advantages for second language learning, others have advanced an opposing viewpoint: they argue that greater cognitive maturity and greater learning experience on the part of the older language learners are assets. （The optimal age for second language learning remains an issue in odds） II. Differences Between Child and Adult L2 Learner Krashen (1979), after investigating child-adult differences in L2 learning, proposed an eclectic view summarizing his findings of child and adult language acquisition into three points: 1. In early stages, adults proceed faster than children do in morphological and syntactical developments because adults have the ability of formal or abstract thinking to make conscious generalizations about the abstract rules of language. 2. In early stage older children are better L2 learners than younger ones because the ability of formal thinking in young children does not mature until about the age of 12. Although the older children are relatively weaker in formal operations than adults, they certainly have such ability that lacks in young children. 3. In the long run, children are better L2 learners than adults are in final proficiency, and younger children are better than older children. Learners who begin natural exposure to L2 during childhood generally achieve higher levels of L2 proficiency than those beginning as adults. Children as a group will catch up, and surpass most adults. To sum up, adults and older children initially acquire the second language faster than young children, but child second language acquirers will usually be superior in terms of ultimate attainment. Children are far more native-like in pronunciation and intonation than adults. Ellis (1985:106) pointed out that if due account is taken of the differential effects of age on pronunciation, vocabulary, and grammar, and if starting age is not confounded with the number of years’ exposure to the L2, the pattern is: 1. Starting age does not affect the route of SLA. Although there may be differences in the acquisition order, these are not the result of age. 2. Starting age affects the rate of learning. Where grammar and vocabulary are concerned,  30 adolescent learners do better than either children or adults, when the length of exposure is held constant. Where pronunciation is concerned, there is no appreciable difference. 3. Both number of years of exposure and starting age affect the level of success. The number of years’ exposure contributes greatly to the overall communicative fluency of the learners, but starting age deter- mines the levels of accuracy achieved, particularly in pronunciation. The research that has addressed the age issue is quite enormous, but despite of this, some common ground is emerging as general conclusions (Ellis 1991): 1. Adult learners have an initial advantage where rate of learning is concerned, particularly in grammar. They will eventually be overtaken by child learners who receive enough exposure to the L2. This is less likely to happen in instructional than in naturalistic settings because the critical amount of exposure is usually not available in the former. 2. Only child learners are capable of acquiring a native accent in informal learning contexts. Adult learners may be able to acquire a native accent with the assistance of instruction, but further research is needed to substantiate this claim. 3. Children may be more likely to acquire a native grammatical competence. Some adult learners, however, may succeed in acquiring native levels of grammatical accuracy in speech and writing and even full “linguistic competence”. 4. Irrespective of whether native-speaker proficiency is achieved, children are more likely to reach higher levels of attainment in both pronunciation and grammar than adults. 5. The process of acquiring an L2 grammar is not substantially affected by age, but that of acquiring pronunciation may be. III. Conclusions on L2 Learner’s Age Issue 1. Language learning may occur at different maturity levels from the early years into adult life. No age or stage stands out as optimal or critical for all aspects of second language learning. 2. In some respects, all age levels face second language learning in similar ways; consequently adults and children are likely to have certain strategies in common and to go through similar stages of language learning. These stages have much in common with first language acquisition. 3. Language learning is not monolithic. There are age differences in the acquisition of different aspects of language such as phonology, vocabulary, and syntax. 4. In certain respects pre-school children, young school children, older child learners, adolescents, and adults differ psychologically in their approach to second language learning. What these differences in developmental stages are at present not fully understood. But it appears that young children respond more readily and intuitively to language acquisition in social and communicative situations, while older learners can learn languages more readily by means of cognitive and academic approaches. 5. Each stage of development may have certain advantages and certain disadvantages for second language learning. 6. For decisions on the foreign language learning, biological and psychological considerations are not adequate. On educational, political and philosophical grounds may be desirable to introduce younger children to second languages even if it is not necessarily psychologically optimal. The decision at what age in the educational process to introduce a foreign language can be governed by three criteria (Stern 1983): [1] the estimated time necessary to reach a desired level of language proficiency by a specified stage in the school career of the majority of the learners;  31 [2] the educational value attributed to learning foreign languages at a given stage of the curriculum; [3] the human and material resources required to develop and maintain an educationally sound and successful foreign language program. Intelligence and Aptitude I. Intelligence Intelligence, one important cognitive factor related to L2 learning, deals with the process of taking material into the brain, into our systems of memory. Traditionally, intelligence is defined in terms of linguistic and logical-mathematical abilities. In terms of Ausubel’s meaningful learning model, high intelligence would no doubt imply a very efficient process of storing items that are particularly useful in building conceptual hierarchies and systematically pruning those that are not useful. In this traditional definition, intelligence may have little to do with one’ s success as a second language learner. In relating intelligence to second language, some people simply hold that a “smart” learner will be capable of learning a foreign language more successfully because of greater intelligence. They firmly believe that the biggest barrier to second language learning seems to come down to a matter of memory. If one could remember everything one had been ever taught,or heard, s/he would be a very successful learner. But in fact, language learning IQ is much more complicated than imagined. There has been much evidence to show that people with both high or low IQs have proven to be successful in acquiring a second language. H. Gardner (1983) argued that by looking only at the above two categories we rule out a great number of the human being’s mental abilities and we see only a portion of the total capacity of the human mind. H. Gardner gave a more comprehensive picture of intelligence and maintained that the definition of intelligence should broadly include the following seven different aspects: (1) linguistic abilities; (2) logical-mathematical abilities; (3) spatial intelligence (the ability to find one’s way around an environment, to form mental images of reality and to transform them readily); (4) musical intelligence (the ability to perceive and create pitch and rhythmic patterns); (5) bodily-kinesthetic intelligence (fine motor movement, athletic prowess 身体运动智力); (6) interpersonal intelligence (the ability to understand others, how they feel, what motivates them, how they interact with one another 人际智力);(7) intrapersonal intelligence (the ability to see oneself, to develop a sense of self-identity 内省智力). From the broad definition, we can easily discern a relationship between intelligence and second language learning. Gardner attaches important attributes to the notion of intelligence, which could be crucial to second language success. Musical intelligence could explain the relative ease that some learners have in perceiving and producing the intonation patterns of a language. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence is connected with the learning of the phonology of a language. Interpersonal intelligence is of importance in the communicative process. Intrapersonal intelligence such as motivation, attitude and personality may have definite impact on second language learning. II. Aptitude The concept of an aptitude for language learning is derived from every-day experience that some language learners appear to have a “gift” for languages which others lack. It is commonly assumed that there is such a thing as a special “talent”, or “gift” or aptitude for L2 learning, which some language learners possess to a greater extent than others and which is largely responsible for individual differences in L2 learning success. But the question is that it is very  32 hard to agree on what constitutes this special talent for L2 learning. As we know all children are born with the ability to learn languages. Neufeld (1979) argues that people do seem to differ considerably as to the ultimate level of skill they reach in their native language. The fact that some people become highly competent L1 users whereas others do not, can only be accounted for by pointing to a special language learning ability. When compared with L1 language, L2 learners not only seem to differ considerably with respect to success in mastering high levels of skill in the target language, but also with respect to mastering more basic components of the target language. The concept of aptitude has obvious implications for planning language teaching. Should languages be taught to everybody or only to those who have sufficient aptitude? Should students with different aptitudes be placed into separate categories? Can aptitude be developed by training? Carroll (1958) identified four independent abilities constituting L2 learning talent: (1) phonetic coding abilities (语言编码解码能力):; (2) grammatical sensitivity (语言敏感性); (3) inductive language learning ability (语言归纳能力); and (4) rote memorization ability(强记能力). Phonetic coding ability: the ability to code auditory phonetic material in such a way that this can recognized, identified, and remembered over something longer than a few seconds. Grammatical sensitivity: the ability to recognize grammatical functions of words in sentence contexts. Inductive language learning ability: the ability to infer linguistic forms, rules and patterns from new linguistic content itself with a minimum of supervision or guidance. Rote memorization ability: the ability to learn a large number of associations in a relatively short time. Language aptitude tests are intended to sort out individuals before undergoing language training. Their value lies in their capacity to make predictions as accuracy as possible. The test results can be used to arrange students in roughly same groups. They can also be used to make a selection of more promising learners from less promising ones. They can further be employed diagnostically in order to identify strengths and weakness in the learner for the task of language learning. In addition to their practical value that the tests contribute to a better understanding of the nature of language aptitude as a learner factor, those who have developed these tests claim that language aptitude is not necessarily innate. No matter in what manner it is acquired, it is regarded as a group of stable characteristics. It is not clear whether positive aptitude characteristics could be developed by specific training or by exposure to language learning, but it seems likely that they can be improved to some extent III. 语言学能考试的预测效果及其争议 实验数据表明，语言学能考试具有较好的预测性。

Carroll 用他的《现代语言学能考试》调查中学生的学习情况在获得的 28 个相关系数中，最大值为 0.78，最小值为 0.25，中值为 0.55他在大学生中也做过类似的调查，得到 25 个相关系数，最大值为 0.69，最小值为0.13，中值为 0.44Pimsleur 也对他的语言学能考试进行过一系列的调查所得相关系数有时高达 0.87，最低也在 0.3 以上这是对语言学能考试预测性较好的说明，表明语言学能考试与外语学习有一定的联系对于这种联系有两种解释一种解释认为，外语学习的好坏涉及到语言学能因素，外语学能是存在的另一种解释是，外语训练影响学能语言学能考试首先是为满足外语教学的需要而设计的，但它有助于我们从理论上去探讨语言学能的性质学能考试的设计者并不认为学能是天赋的能力 不管是以何种途径获得这些能力， 语言学能表现为一组相对稳定的特征 这些特征到底是通过特殊训练， 还是在语言学习中体验发展起 33 来的，目前尚不清楚，有待深入探讨 Stern（1983）认为，语言学能能够在一定程度上得到改善这代表了一部分人的观点语言学能考试给人的启发是： 语言学能并非不是要么有， 要么无的东西， 也不是不可分割的。

它有几种不同的能力组成， 这些能力在外语学习中发生作用 学习者不同程度地具备这些能力，只是存在个别差异比如，有的人辨音能力强些，有的人语言归纳能力强些在语言学能问题上存在的争议持否定态度的人认为，既然绝大多数人都有能力习得自己的母语，而习得语言的能力是人类所具有的普遍的认知特征， 那么， 语言学能的概念就显得没有多大意义了 一些人把外语学习的过程视为认知技能发生作用的过程， 这无形中也否定了有特殊外语学习才能存在的可能性Gardner 指出，人与人之间存在着广泛的差异，即使把语言习得看做是认知技能的作用，人在认知技能方面也有差异如果将语言的复杂性考虑进去，人们在学习语音、词汇、语法、语义等方面表现出来的差异也不小特别是在学习外语的时候，语言技能上表现出来的差异显得更加突出 语言学习能力的个别差异是客观存在的， 需要我们对它进行描述 描述语言能力特征本身便足以证明外语学能概念的有效性 如果我们既承认语言学能的客观存在，也承认认知技能的作用，那么，我们便有理由认为，一般认知技能与学习语言的特殊能力对外语学习都产生影响 IV Cognitive Style 1.Definition of Cognitive Style Cognitive Style is a term used to refer to the manner in which people perceive, conceptualize, organize, and recall information. Each person is considered to have a more or less consistent mode of cognitive functioning. There are two crucial aspects of cognitive style relevant to language learning. One is the cognitive aspect and the other is the affective aspect. Till now, a lot of different cognitive styles have been identified. But only little research has been done on cognitive styles in L2 learning. What should be noted here is the fact that it can hardly be argued that cognitive style is strictly a matter of cognition only. It really mediates between emotion and cognition and extends beyond the cognitive domain into other domain usually subsumed under “personality”. Cognitive styles are determined by the way learners internalize their total environment, and since that internalization process is not strictly cognitive, we find that physical, affective, and cognitive domains merge in cognitive style. 2.Field Independence & Field Dependence Field independence points to the ability of a person to perceive a particular, relevant item or factor in a “field” of distracting items as discrete from the surrounding field as a whole. A field independence person tends to perceive things analytically, is impersonally oriented and less aware of others’interests. 具有场独立特征的人能够从繁杂的干扰项目中找出某个相关的项目来。

善于剖析事物和问题，易于把部分与整体区别开来，集中于问题或事物的某一部分而不受其他事物的干扰 Field dependence is, conversely, the tendency to be “dependent” on the total field such that the parts embedded within the field are not easily perceived, though the total field is perceived more clearly as a unified whole. A field dependence person tends to perceive globally and shows strong social orientation and is more empathetic and more perceive of others and is an active participant. 具有场依赖特征的人倾向于从宏观上去看事物，把事物作为一个整体来看 Field Dependence Field Independence 1 Personal orientation Impersonal orientation 2 Holistic Analytic 3 Dependent Independent 4 Socially sensitive Not socially aware  34 1.依靠外部参照系处理信息；1.以自我为参照系处理信息； ； 2.倾向于从整体上认知事物；2.倾向分析 3.往往缺乏主见 3.具有独立性； 4.社会敏感性强。

4.社会交往能力较弱 Who is a better learner in language learning, field independent or field dependent person? There are positive and negative characteristics to both of them. Some researchers have found that the field independent person is the better language learner because he will be better able to focus on the relevant variables in a language lesson or a conversation. Field independent style enables the learner to distinguish parts from a whole, to concentrate only on something, to analyze separate things without affecting the whole. But too much field independence may force the learner to see only the parts and fail to see their relationship to a whole and cause “tunnel vision”. As the saying goes “you can’t see the forest for the trees”. Field dependent style has positive effects. The learner can perceive the whole picture, the large view, or a general picture of a problem or event. Language learning requires both in that it is often necessary to understand language items in their context, and at the same time to clarify the item out of that context. The research on field independence-dependence has shown that persons tend to be dominant in one mode of field independence-dependence or the other, and that field independence-dependence is a relatively stable trait. Field independence increases as a child matures to adulthood. It has been found that males tend to be more field independent, and that field independent is related to the analytical factor, one of the three main factors used to define intelligence. Affectively, persons who are more predominantly field independent tend to be generally more independent, competitive and self confident. Field dependent persons tend to be more socialized, derive their self-identity from persons around them, and are usually more empathic and perceptive of the feelings and thoughts of others. How is field independent-dependent style related to second language learning? Two conflicting hypotheses can be proposed. Hypothesis 1: Field independence is closely related classroom learning that involves analysis, attention to details, and mastering of exercises, drills and other focused activities Hypothesis 2: Field dependent persons will, by virtue of their empathy, social outreach and perception of other people, be successful in learning the communicative aspects of a second language. Implications of the study of field independent-dependent style The first implication is that depending on the context of learning, individual learners should be able to vary their utilization of field independence or dependence. If a task requires field independence, learners may invoke their field independence style; if it requires field dependence, they may invoke their field dependence style. Language learning requires both field independent and dependent abilities of the learner and the ability to manipulate them interchangeably or alternatively. Secondly, it is a misconception to view field independence and dependence in complementary distribution. In second language learning, it is incorrect to assume that learners should be either field independent or field dependent. In fact, some learners might be both highly field independent and highly field dependent as contexts vary. It is more likely that a learner has general inclinations. The task of the learner is how to invoke the appropriate style for the context, while the task of the  35 teacher is how to understand the preferred styles of each learner and to adjust the flexibility in the learner. Thirdly, to improve our teaching methods and efficiency of foreign language teaching, it is highly necessary to distinguish field dependent and independent learners and treat them separately. Field dependent learners are relatively weaker in self study and prefer to fulfill their learning tasks in the collective and collaborative environment. They are sensitive to others’ opinions about them and become frustrated when criticized in public. But they are good at memorization. Therefore, teachers need to give them correct guidance to avoid rote learning as well as encouragement and confidence. Field independent learners, on the other hand, tend to work and think independently and are able to make their own practical study plans. So, it is the responsibility of the teacher to provide enough learning material and leave more time for them to study by themselves. V. Conclusion In conclusion, cognitive styles decide the way people perceive and approach their problems in L2 learning. Cognitive styles are more general and abstract than learning strategies. It is noteworthy for the teachers to recognize and understand them in order to provide optimal opportunities for the learners. Research into the relationship between cognitive style factors and L2 learning success has been a fairly rare phenomenon and research findings supporting the hypothesized relationship between cognitive style factors and successful L2 learning are even rarer. But in the recent decades, they have been widely scrutinized and their implication to L2 learning are emphasized. VI.Attitude and Motivation 1. Brief Introduction. Human beings are emotional creatures. They do not take in everything they hear or see. Their emotional status and other affective factors filter what they learn. In language learning, it is quite evident that strong positive or negative emotions are involved in the success or failure of the target language. The affective factors create the first filter for the language input and have a decisive impact on the learner in the language learning. Therefore, a systematic investigation of affective and personal factors in language learning has interested many researchers since the early 1950s. Affect refers to emotion or feeling. The affective domain refers to the emotional domain that has to do with the emotional behavior of human beings. It includes such factors as empathy, extroversion, anxiety, attitude and motivation. If we break down the components of human affective domain, we get five levels of affectivity (Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia 1964). Level One: It is the first and fundamental beginning of receiving. Persons must be aware of the environment around them and be willing to receive a stimulus and give the controlled or selected attention to the stimulus. Level Two: It is the level of responding. Persons must be willing to respond without coercion. Level Three: It is the level of valuing. Persons must place worth on a thing, a behavior or a person. Valuing takes on the features of internal beliefs or attitudes. Level Four: It is the level of organization. Persons must organize values into a system of beliefs, determining interrelationships and establishing a hierarchy of values. Level Five: It is the level of value system. Persons become characterized by and understand themselves in terms of their value system. It is at this level that problem solving is approached on the basis of a total, self-consistent system. 2. Attitude. In learning a second or foreign language, learners manifest different attitudes  36 towards (1) the target language, (2) target language speakers, (3) the target language culture, (4) the social value of learning the L2, (5) particular uses of the target language, and (6) themselves as members of their own culture. Attitude generally consists of the following three aspects.. [1] Cognitive component: It refers to one’s idea or belief about the object. For example, This car is very cheap. [2] Affective component: It refers to the amount of positive or negative feelings one has towards the object. For example, I like / dislike the car. [3] Behavioral component: It refers to one’s behavioral intentions, or one’s actual behavior towards the object. For example, I bought the car last week. In short, attitude may be cognitive, affective or behavioral dimensions, and can be dichotomized into positive and negative aspects. The cognitive dimension is accompanied by either positive or negative feelings. The affective dimension refers to the emotional tendency to like or dislike a person or an object. Affectively, the negative attitude looks to the disliking of a person, whereas the positive attitude leads to the liking of a person. Behavioral dimension refers to the behavioral tendency to seek or avoid contact with a person or an object. Negative attitude is the behavioral tendency to avoid contact with people, whereas the positive attitude indicates the tendency to seek contact with people. Relationships Between Attitude and L2 Learning Most research on attitudes with regard to language learning has tended to concentrate on attitudes towards target language and their speakers. In 1950s, Gardner and Lambert and other researchers initiated a series of studies investigating how the attitude and achievement in L2 learning are related. Their aspects of investigation cover the following: Attitudes towards the target language and its speakers; Attitudes towards learning the language concerned; Attitudes towards languages and language learning in general. John Oller and his colleagues conducted several studies of the relation-ship between attitudes and language success. The results show that there is a strong relationship between positive attitudes and L2 proficiency and the strength of the correlation between attitudes and proficiency varies with age of the learner and learning contexts III. Motivation Generally, motivation is used to refer to some kind of driving force, either internal or external, in human beings. It is commonly thought of as an inner drive, impulse, emotion, or desire that moves one to a particular action. 产生内在动机和外在动机的根源不同。

内在动机来自个人对所做事情本身的兴趣外在动机是外部因素作用的结果如父母的赞同、奖赏、惩罚、考试取得高分等等相对而言，内在动机与长远的成功有联系，外在动机与短期成功有关 动机与个人对成功或失败的期望有关， 还与他所从事的工作本身的价值有关 一般说来，如果事情成功的把握大，重要性突出，那么，做事情的动机也会强烈 动机与个人如何对待工作成就的态度也有联系 According to Dulay et al, three kinds of motivation affect language learning. They are integrative motivation ( 整 合 型 动 机 ), instrumental motivation ( 工 具 型 动 机 ) and social-group-identification motivation (社团融合型动机). Integrative motivation  37 Integrative motivation can be defined as the desire to achieve pro-ficiency in a new language in order to know about the other culture, participate in the life of the community that speak the language. Learners wish to integrate themselves within the culture of the second language group, to identify themselves with and become a part of that society. It reflects a sincere and personal interest in the people and the culture presented by that community. An integrative-motivated learner learns the second language in order to meet with, talk to, find about, and perhaps behave like the speakers of the target language whom he both values and admires. Instrumental motivation This can be defined as the desire to acquire a language as a means for attaining utilitarian goals such as getting a job, furthering a career, reading or translating technical materials in target language, etc. Instrumental motivation reflects the practical value and advantages of learning a foreign language. An instrumental-motivated person has limited interest in the people and the culture of the target language. Some research evidence shows that students of English with higher instrumental motivation scored higher in the tests of English proficiency. The more recent findings point out that there is no single means of learning a second language. Some learners in some contexts are more successful in learning a language if they are integratively oriented, and others in different contexts benefit from an instrumental orientation. The findings also suggest that the two types of motivation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Second language learning is rarely motivated by attitudes that are exclusively instrumental or exclusively integrative. Most situations involve a mixture of each type of motivation. Social-group-identification motivation This is defined as the desire to acquire proficiency in a language spoken by a social group with which the learner identifies. It is similar to the integrative motive, but goes beyond it. Learners with an integrative motive for learning a new language would wish to participate in the social or cultural life of the target language speakers while retaining their identification with their own native language group. But learners who have social-group-identification motivation would also want to become members of the target language community and at the same time intend to assimilate fully into the host society by totally giving up their own identity and culture and language. IV. Relations Between Motivation & Attitude Attitude and motivation are directly and closely related with each other, which in turn is directly responsible for the success or failure of the second language learning. Motivation depends on attitude, and to some extent, attitude should be viewed as the motivational support, which only has an indirect impact on the second language learning. The relation of attitude to motivation is dependent on the type of motivation. For example, an integrative motivation presupposes a positive attitude towards the target language, its speakers and culture. An integrative learner is likely to hold very sympathetic attitudes towards the culture of the foreign language and its speakers. He may prepare to take over some of its values. He will probably see great value in being able to speak the language and have access to a different culture.  38 On the other hand, learners with highly ethnocentric attitudes（种族中心主义的态度） will probably show hostility towards the target language speakers and their values. Moreover, motivation to learn a language is not totally determined by attitudes. The results of the motivation research reveal the following major findings (Ellis 1985): 1.Motivation and attitudes are important factors, which help to determine the level of proficiency achieved by different learners. 2.The effects of motivation/attitudes appear to be separate from the effects of aptitude. The most successful learners will be those who have both a talent and a high level of motivation for learning. 3. In certain situations an integrative motivation may be more powerful in facilitating successful L2 learning, but in other situations instrumental motivations may count far more. 4. The level and type of motivation is strongly influenced by the social context in which learning takes place. Brown (1981) 区分了以下三种不同的外语学习的动机： 1.整体动机：指对外语习得的一般状态； 2.情景动机：如在自然习得情况下学习者动机不同于课堂学习者的动机。

3.任务动机：指对具体任务的动机 Personality I. Definition There is no generally agreed definition of personality among psychologists. But there are many aspects of personality factors, the major dimensions of which may include the following five fairs: extroversion / introversion; self-esteem / self-consciousness; empathy / authoritarian; relaxation / anxiety; inhibition / risk-taking. II. Self-esteem & Self-consciousness Personality development universally involves the growth of a person’s concept of self, acceptance of self and reflection of self as seen in the interaction between self and other. Many research findings claim that no successful learning activity can be carried out without some degree of self-esteem, self-confidence and egocentric. Self-esteem is well defined in the following statement (Cooper-smith 1967). By self-esteem, we refer to the evaluation which the individual makes and customarily maintains with regard to himself; it expresses an attitude of approval or disapproval, and indicates the extent to which an individual believes himself to be capable, significant, successful and worthy. In short, self-esteem is a personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself. It is a subjective experience which the individual conveys to others by verbal reports and other overt expressive behavior. II. Self-esteem & Self-consciousness Self-esteem is closely related to L2 learning. Research evidence shows that even if all things being equal, the self-esteemed person is a more successful language learner. They have the advantage of not fearing rejection and are therefore more likely to put themselves in learning situations and do so repeatedly. They are less likely to be thrown into personal turmoil when they make mistakes than those more self-conscious. In addition, self-esteemed ones are less hampered by the conscious operation of the monitor because they are not so worried about how they appear. Learners’self-esteem can be an important aspect in understanding how they deal with language learning tasks. However, many learners are caught in a vicious cycle. They doubt that they can perform well in a certain activity. So they avoid it. Because they avoid it, they are reluctant to practice in the  39 activity and do not respond actively. In this case, it is the teacher’s responsibility to exert considerable influence on the direction of learner’s self-esteem by communicating effectively with him/her and enhancing his/her self-confidence. On the other hand, the students’ self-esteem can develop from their successful performances on classroom tasks. The language teachers should try to establish the most positive learning environment and structure learning objectives in accordance with the students’ abilities. III. Extroversion & Introversion Extroversion refers to the tendency to be outgoing and interested in people and things in the environment. Extrovert students are labeled as sociable, adventurous, talkative, and not fond of studying by themselves.Introversion refers to the tendency to withdraw from social interaction and be preoccupied with inner thoughts and feelings. Introvert students are reserved, shy, quiet, and careful in their language learning. Researchers believe that extroverts are better and more successful language learners. If we emphasize the interpersonal aspect of language learning, extroversion would be an asset. To be sociable and outgoing is not only helpful to language learning, it is also recommended as the appropriate strategy to be adopted by learners, particularly in the develop-ment of communicative competence. Learners who are eager to try new and unpredictable experiences, and who are willing to guess before knowing for sure, are likely to seek out situations that require real communication in the new language. These learners have been observed to use a large range of forms in the target language than those “wait and see” personalities of the same level of L2 development.The adventuresome learners find language learning relatively painless and learn fairly quickly. If everything is equal, extroverts are better at speaking than introverts, but not at aural and reading comprehension nor at writing. But introversion might well be regarded as advantageous to the systematic study of a language.One research finding shows that it is still not clear in some cases whether extroversion or introversion helps or hinders the process of second language learning (Naiman 1978). He found that no significant effect for extroversion in characterizing the good language learner. IV. Empathy & Authoritarian (移情与自傲) Empathy refers to the projection of one’s own personality into the personality of another in order to understand him better. It is generally agreed that there are two necessary aspects of the development and exercising of empathy. First, an awareness and knowledge of one’s own feelings; second, identification with another person. In other words, you cannot fully empathize or know someone else until you adequately know yourself.As applied to the L2 learning, the term empathy refers to the ability of the L2 learner to identify with the communicative behavior of users of the target language. Communication requires a sophisticated degree of empathy. In order to communicate effectively we should understand the other person’s affective and cognitive states; communication breaks down if false presuppositions and assumptions are made about the other person’s state. To make the assumptions correctly we need to go beyond our ego boundaries so that we can send and receive messages clearly.Oral communication is a case in which it is cognitively easier to achieve empathic communication because there is immediate feedback from the hearer. A misunderstood word, phrase, or idea can be questioned by the hearer, and then rephrased by the speaker until a clear message is interpreted.Written communication requires special kind of empathy – a cognitive empathy in which the writer, without the benefit of immediate feedback from the reader, must communicate ideas by means of a very clear empathic intuition and judgment of the reader’s state of mind and structure of knowledge. So in a second language learning situation, the problem of empathy becomes acute.  40 外语学习者不仅需要了解听话者的认知和情感状态，同时还要用自己不太熟练的语言去达到移情的目的。

在表达思想时，由于语言上的障碍，学习者做出错误的判断是常事，误解也时常发生在这种情况下，学生非常需要来自教师的移情；而教师又是却忘记了自己学习外语的经历，对学生的错误过于苛求，使课堂学习出现情感危机，加剧了抑制心理的作用，致使教学效果受到影响 Learners with authoritarian dispositions do not seem to learn a second language as easily as empathic personalities. Learning a language requires carefully listening to others and caring more about communicating ideas than about avoiding speech errors. The relationship between empathy and L2 learning has been the subject of a series of studies conducted by researchers. So far, positive correlation has been found between empathy and the learning pronunciation in L1 and L2 learning, and in the development of communicative skills. V. Anxiety & Relaxation (焦虑与放松) According to Ausubel (1968), anxiety refers to an actual fear-like response or to a tendency to respond with fear to any current or anticipated situation that is perceived as a potential threat to self-esteem. It differs from ordinary fear in that the threat is directed against self-esteem rather than against physical well-being, and may be anticipated or current in nature. Anxiety level is one measure of self-confidence. It is associated with feelings of uneasiness, self-doubt, apprehension, or worry. Research evidence shows that anxiety comes from a considerable number of potential sources. Some of them are associated with the learner, some with the teacher, and still some with the instructional process. At least, four sources of anxiety can be identified in the classroom, namely, personal anxieties; learner’s beliefs about language learning; teacher’s beliefs about language teaching; and teacher-learner instructions. Anxiety can also be examined from another aspect. It can be both negative and positive. It is either debilitative or facilitative. Debilitative anxiety is negative, which should be avoided at any costs, e.g. test anxiety. On the negative side, anxiety, as a key motivational element in classroom behavior and achievement, impedes communication in the EFL classroom in various ways.First, students are inhibited by their fear of failure. This often leads to a loss of concentration as their sense of anxiety diverts their attention from the task they have been involved.Secondly, students who experience intense anxiety often lose heart. Their lack of concentration affects their performance and their anxiety levels are further raised. They experience cycles of anxiety and failure that eventually discourage them altogether. Generally, three types of distractions interfere with the performance of anxious individuals. First, they worry a good deal about their performance, the consequences of failure and how well they are doing in relation to others. Second, they experience emotional interference in the form of physiological arousal that produces such symptoms as “racing heart” and an upset stomach. Third, anxious people often attempt to compensate for their apprehension by taking a “safe” approach solving that leads to rigid and unimaginative response. On the positive side, facilitative anxiety is one of the key factors to success and is closely related to competitiveness. Reasonable degree of apprehension or concern over a language learning task, such as alert before getting the job done, is highly necessary and encouraged.If students can not maintain a certain degree of anxiety and concentrate their efforts on review of their lessons before an important exam and conscientiously practice what they have learned, they can not expect to perform well and score high in the test. In this sense, we say that anxiety is useful and necessary for language learning. The relationship between anxiety and language learning is complicated. Until recently, research on  41 this area has been inconclusive. But one thing is certain that lower anxiety levels are related to successful L2 learning. It seems that a student’s evident manifestations of anxiety in the foreign language classroom will certainly impair the smooth performance of freer, learner-centered teaching of the target language, and simultaneously discourage the teacher to try new methods. Often there is enough evidence to show whether the students are anxious or not. If they are found to have such physical and psychological changes as fewer imitations of conversations, less participations in conversations or drill training, few instances of silence breakers, shorter speaking periods in front of audience, distortion of sounds, and “freezing up” when performing in communicative practice, they can be said to be undergoing pressure of anxiety .When this happens, teachers should induce in learners a relaxed and comfortable state of mind in order to maximize language learning. The following tips of strategies to reduce anxiety in language learning may be useful to language teachers: 1. Helping students raise their self-esteem; 2 .Making students aware of their anxiety; 3 Adapting to role-switching; 4. Developing a skillful error correction approach. VI. Inhibition & Risk-taking (抑制与冒险) Inhibition refers to the building of defenses around our egos. Some persons – those with higher self-esteem and ego strength – are more able to withstand threats to their existence and thus their defenses are lower. Those with weaker self-esteem maintain walls of inhibition to protect what is self-perceived to be a weak or fragile ego, or a lack of self-confidence in a situation or task. The human ego encompasses the language ego which refers to the very personal, egoistic nature of second language acquisition. Meaningful language acquisition involves some degree of identity conflict as language learners take on a new identity with their newly acquired competence. An adaptive language ego enables learners to lower the inhibition that may impede success. The inhibitions which we place between ourselves and others can prevent us from communicating in a foreign language. Anyone who has learned a foreign language is actually aware that second language learning actually necessitates the making of mistakes. We test out hypotheses about language by trial and error. Children learning their first language and adults learning their second language can really make progress by learning from mistakes. If we never ventured to speak a sentence until we were absolutely certain of its total correctness, we would never be able to communicate productively. But mistakes can be viewed as threats to one’s ego. They pose both internal and external threats. Internally, one’s critical self and one’s performing self can be in conflict: the learner performs something “wrong” and becomes critical of his or her own mistakes. Externally, the learner perceives others exercising their critical selves, even judging his very person when he or she blunders in a second language. Language learning involves a number of forms of alienation, between the critical ego and the performing ego, between my native culture and my target culture, between me and my teacher, and between me and my fellow students. This alienation arises from the defenses that we build around ourselves. These defenses do not facilitate learning; rather they inhibit learning and their removal can promote language learning. Risk-taking is an important characteristic of successful learning of a second language. Learners have to be able to “gamble” a bit, to be willing to try out hunches about the language and take the risk of being wrong. The silent learner in the classroom is unwilling to take risk and appear foolish to make mistakes. Higher risk-taking students, on the other hand, are very active in class. Beebe (1983) says risk-taking is important in both classroom and natural settings. In the  42 classroom, these ramifications might include a bad grade in the course, a failure on the exam, a reproach from the teacher, a smirk from classmates, punishment or embarrassment imposed by oneself. Outside the classroom, individuals learning a second language face other negative consequences if they make mistakes. They fear looking ridiculous. They fear the frustration coming from a listener’s blank look, showing that they have failed to communicate. They fear the danger of not being able to take care of themselves. They fear the alienation of not being able to communicate and thereby get close to other human beings. Perhaps worst of all, they fear a loss of their identity. Research findings show that high risk-taking does not necessarily yield positive results in second language learning. Persons with high motivations to achieve are moderate, not high risk-takers. These learners are likely to be in control and like to depend on skill. They do not take wild, frivolous risks or enter into no-win situations. Successful L2 learners appear to fit into the same category. A learner might be too bold in producing meaning-less verbal performances which no one can quite understand. Success lies in an optimum point where calculated guesses are ventured. As Rubin (1975) noted, a good language learner would make willing and accurate guesses. The implication of this pair of personalities for second language learning is significant. Overtly, high risk-takers who usually dominate the classroom should be “tamed” a bit by the teacher. Teachers should encourage students to guess somewhat more willingly in the language learning. How to Be a Good Language Learner? 1.能够适应学习环境中的团体活力，克服负焦虑和干扰因素； 2.寻找各种机会使用目的语； 3.利用所提供的机会练习倾听针对他输出的目的语并做出反应，即注意意义而非形式； 4.通过学习技巧来补充与目的语社团成员直接交往的不足； 5.至少在语法学习的初级阶段，是个少年或成年而非小孩； 6.具备足够的分析技巧和接受、区分和储存外语的特征,监测错误； 7.具备学习外语的强烈整体动机并具有强烈的任务动机； 8.愿意冒险，勇于实践； .9.能够适应不同的学习环境。

Good language learners: Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978)  Actively involve themselves in the language learning process by identifying and seeking preferred learning environments and exploring them,  Develop an awareness of language as a system,  Develop an awareness of language as a means of communication and interaction,  Accept and cope with the affective demands of L2,  Extend and revise L2 system by inferencing and monitoring. Chapter Five Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition 输入(input)是指在语言学习中学习者听到或接收到的并能作为其学习对象的语言(J.C,Richard.1992,P.227) 。

我们知道，只有当二语学习者获得语言输入时，二语习得才有可能产生 然而， 在输入机制、 输入形式以及输入与输出关系等对于二语习得所起的作用方面，语言学家们持有不同的观点 为此， 他们进行了理论建构与实证方面的研究并取得了丰硕成果本讲试从理论研究层面和实证研究方面进行综述,进一步分析语言输入对二语习得的影响 一、不同的语言输入观  43 乔姆斯基的语言输入观 Chomsky (1964) 认为人大脑内部存在一个语言习得机制(LAD)，因此，人生来就有一种生成和理解语言的能力，这种能力是人类心智的组成部分，是人们头脑中固有的机制他同时指出， 人的智能结构和认知能力是人类这个物种的大脑生物学结构所固有的， 一旦受到外界刺激和驱动就能被激活，产出知识和语言在 Chomsky 看来，语言输入的作用是激活内部语言习得机制，语言习得是一个内在化的过程即使输入的材料是不充分和退化的，它也可能激发语言习得 克拉申的输入假设观 在 70 年代末，Krashen 提出“监察模式”(Monitor Model) 此模式建立在五个假设之上它们是：输入假设、习得与学习假设、监察假设、自然顺序假设以及情感过滤假设输入假设是监察模式的核心部分。

它明确告诉我们语言是如何习得的该假设认为“可理解的语言输入” (comprehensive input)是二语习得的首要条件所谓“可理解的语言输入”是指学习者听到或读到可以理解的语言材料，其难度应略高于学习者目前的目标语语言水平，即 i + lKrashen 将“i”定义为学习者目前的目标语语言状态，“1”为当前语言状态与下一阶段语言状态的间隔距离，“i + l”视为语言发展的下一个阶段Krashen 认为只有学习者的理解能力高于他现有水平的输入，并且当这样的输入达到足够量时，学习者就能够自动地习得语言 Krashen 认为理想的输入应该是: a. 足够量的输入：要习得一个新的语言结构，单靠几道练习或几篇短文是远远不够的， 还需要连续多个小时的有内容、 有趣味的广泛阅读和对话才能解决问题b. 可理解性(comprehensibility) ：理解输入的语言材料是语言习得的必要条件，不可理解的输入只是一种噪音c. 非语法程序( not grammatically sequenced) ：语言习得的关键是足够量的可理解输入按语法程序安排的教学是不可取的 因此，Krashen 的输入观认为促成语言习得发生的首要条件是有足够量的可理解的语言输入。

Long 的互动假设观 Long(1981)提出互动假设( interactive hypothesis) ，认为可理解输入是语言习得之必需，而在协商解决交际问题的过程中出现的对交谈的互动结构的调整有助于学习者理解语言输入 也就是说，互动型输入比非互动型输入重要 Long(1985: 378)建议，可以通过以下三个步骤认识语言输入是如何影响语言习得的： 步骤 1：语言/对话调整促进语言输入的理解； 步骤 2：可理解的输入促进语言习得： 步骤 3：语言/对话调整促进习得 Ellis 的语言输入观 一是行为主义观点， 认为在刺激→反应→强化的模式下， 学习者通过模仿讲话者运用的特定的语言形式和句式内化语言知识行为主义观强调通过语言输入，提供适当的语言刺激，以及得到充分的反应来习得语言因此，我们可以说学习者是产生语言的机器，语言环境是关键的决定因素， 语言输入和语言输出之间存在直接关系， 语言输入对语言习得起着决定性的影响 二是心灵主义观点强调内部语言习得机制的作用 语言输入的作用只是激活学习者大脑内部语言习得机制，进行语言加工处理，这种内在的语言习得机制才是语言习得的关键。

因此，语言输入与语言输出之间不存在直接关系三是互动式观点，认为语言习得是学习者的内在习得机制与语言输入或环境相互作用的结果， 只有学习者和他的对话者相互努力， 语言习得的质量才能得到保证因此，语言输入与语言输出之间不存在直接关系 从三种输入观的内容来看：三种输入观存在同一性他们都强调语言输入的必要性，认为语言输入是语言习得不可或缺的条件(戴小春, P45) ,同时，三种输入观均主张提供的可理解语言输入的衡量标准是由学习者的目标语水平决定 但是， 他们之间也存在区别， 各有侧重关于语言输入与输出的关系，三种输入观有不同的解释行为主义输入观立足于感性认识， 44 认为语言习得的过程是“刺激”→“反应”→“强化”和“重复”的习惯形成过程它能使学习者形成极为复杂的语言习惯， 强调外部环境对语言习得的决定作用 而心灵主义输入观认为语言输入只是激活内部习得机制的外部条件， 决定输出的是学习者在使用语言过程中内化的语法规则互动式输入观与心灵主义输入观一样，认为输入与输出之间没有直接关系不过，它强调语言习得机制在内化输入材料承载的语法规则的重要性的同时， 还强调语言交际环境在内化输入材料承载语用规则中的重要性， 认为语言交际环境提供的语言输入与内部习得机制共同决定抽象语言能力的获得，而不仅仅是语言习得机制在起作用。

Summary 综上所述，我们可以看出，国外学者对输入对二语习得的影响进行了广泛的研究主要集中在以下几个方面： 一是语言输入的可理解性Krashen 和 Ellis 都认为语言输入应是可理解的，只有可理解的语言输入对习得才是必要的，不可理解的输入只是一种噪音Krashen 认为促成语言习得发生的首要条件是有足够量的可理解的语言输入而 Gass(1988)却提出语言输入应是“被理解的” (comprehended)而非“可理解的”(comprehensible)输入语言输入是否可理解是由说话人来调整的， 而语言输入是否被理解是由学习者来决定的， 这就是为什么在同样的语言环境中学习者对在说话者看来是可理解的相同的语言输入的理解存在差异可以这样认为，Krashen 似乎过分强调外部语言输入的作用， 而忽略习得者作为习得主体这一因素 按照认知理论观点来分析， 并不是所有的语言输入都能促成二语习得的发生 语言输入与二语习得有一个吸收转换的过程 语言知识的输入只有被习得者吸收并转化为能力的情况下才能算是真正习得该语言White(1987)就讨论过，习得过程中有相当一部分是不需输入的(input-free) 。

她认为学习者犯的一些以偏概全的错误仅靠理解输入是无法避免的事实上，在某些结构(如英语的过去时结构)的学习上正是对输入理解的失败导致了学习也就是说，对一个句子的理解的失败会迫使学习者更加注意句子的句法特征， 以便发现能够帮助句意理解的线索 由此可见，“可理解输入”只是二语习得的必要条件，绝非充分条件 二是输入与输出的关系Ellis 的行为主义观认为二者存在直接关系，而心灵主义观和互动输入观都否认二者存在直接关系； Krashen 输入假设过分强调语言输入的作用，而忽视了语言输出的作用； Long 的语言输入观与 Krashen 的输入假设一样认为输入是习得的源泉，把交际和二语习得看成因果关系，不过，与 Krashen 不同的是， Long 认为学习者的输出对语言习得也有积极的作用这一观点得到不少研究者认可，单纯的语言输入是不够充分的，学习者应有机会使用语言，语言输出对语言习得也同样有积极的正面意义在习得过程中，学习者对目标语不断地提出假设， 并在使用中不断地对这些假设进行修正 如果学习者不能或者没有尝试着去使用语言， 他们就很难有机会检验自己对目标语所作的各种假设 我国学者张沪平在 1999 年提出必须将可理解的输入与“交际”( interaction)相结合，学习者才能获得习得的条件。

也就是说，仅有可理解的输入还不足以产生语言习得，语言习得必须将语言输入与语言输出在一个有意义的环境中组合才能真正有效(聂清蒲, 2002) 语言习得实际上是一种输出与输入相互影响的过程，输出的过程中学习者往往是在验证对输入的“理解”，语言输出对二语习得的意义要比 Krashen 想象的要大得多因此，我们说语言输出是对语言输入的补充， 起着验证和促进二语习得有效性的积极作用 语言输入和输出都是语言习得的必要条件 三是语言习得机制在二语习得中的作用 尽管 Chmosky、 Krashen 以及 Ellis 的心灵主义观都认为习得过程对 LAD 起着极其重要的作用，语言输入的作用只是激活学习者大脑内部语言习得机制，进行语言加工处理然而，在 Chmosky 看来，LAD 主要是用于指儿童在接触“主要语言材料”之前的起始状态，是受内在“普遍语法”所约束的在语言方面成年人既不是处于起始状态，而且还具备一整套完整的认知结构，这些认知结构往往可使他违反某些“普遍 45 语法”的约束，做出一些错误的假设，从而使他在语言习得方面跟儿童相比更处于不利的地位而 Krashen 声称“成人和儿童一样能运用天生的语言习得机制”，显然，他把语言习得机制的概念运用于成年人， 把成年人的非自然语学习和儿童的母语习得等同比较， 这种运用超出了一般语言学理论上的内涵，曲解了 Chmosky 的原意。

我们认为，不管成年人还是儿童都存在语言习得机制， 只不过因为成年人已经具备完整的认知结构， 而且影响成年人语言习得的内在和外在因素大量存在， 因此， 成年人语言习得机制对语言输入的加工处理的有效性会受到不同程度的影响 四是互动输入在二语习得中的作用 Long和 Ellis 都强调互动对语言理解与习得的促进作用Long (1981)认为互动型输入比非互动型输入重要； Ellis (1985)认为只有学习者和他的对话者相互努力，语言习得的质量才能得到保证 (Ellis，1985：127-129) ，但必须与学习者的内在习得机制相互作用而 Chmosky 忽视互动输入在二语习得中的作用，强调外部环境对个人语言习得习惯的形成所起的重大作用 Krashen 认为语言习得的关键是足够量的可理解输入这就要求语言输入材料必须经过调整才有可能被学习者吸收，学习者处于被动接受的地位，这就忽略习得者作为习得主体这一因素，交际双方缺乏互动的过程 二、外语学习中输入的特征 Motherese and Caretaker Talk 在国外进行二语习得的输入研究时， 学者们首先将目光投向第一语言习得中的输入， 即输入在儿童习得母语过程中所起的作用。

Snow 和 Ferguson(1977) 以及 Waterson 和 Snow (1978) 通过对“妈妈的话” (motherese) 及“看护者的话” (caretaker talk)(即妈妈或看护者和儿童说话时所用的话语) 进行研究，发现与成人之间的语言相比，这类言语(即输入)的语法结构更简单、句子更短、发音更清晰、语速更慢、“此时此地”类话语及冗余信息更多，以达到交际目的(Rod Ellis1997 :130) 研究发现，这种语言输入对儿童习得母语的路径(route) 几乎不产生重大影响，但对其习得速度(rate) 则有显著的影响通过对母语习得和二语习得的顺序(sequence) 以及两种学习者在习得时所采取的策略进行对比分析， 发现母语与二语习得之间有其相似性， 故 Corder 等提出“L2 = L1 假设”， 即母语习得的顺序、 策略与二语习得的顺序、策略一致，因而为二语习得中的输入研究奠定了一定的基础尽管“妈妈的话”和“看护者的话”在一定程度上与二语习得中的输入有相似之处， 但是这种输入赖以产生的语言环境(即自然环境中的母语习得) 毕竟与二语习得不同， 故这一研究只能对二语习得中的输入研究提供有限的借鉴意义。

Foreigner Talk 鉴于“妈妈的话”及“看护者的话”的研究中存在的缺点，研究者开始研究另一种语域(register) ，即外国人的话(foreigner talk，操母语者在自然环境中对二语学习者所讲的话) 研究表明，“外国人的话”在发音、词汇、语法等语言形式方面都与操母语者内部的谈话有很大的不同；而且互动过程也有其特点：“此时此地”类话题更多；操母语者更多地提出话题；求证类、理解类、澄清类、自我重复类、他人重复类、意思扩展类输入出现频率更高；回答更简短( Ellis 1997： 136) 在“外国人的话”的研究(以及其他研究) 中有一个重要现象， 即“意义的协商”(negotiation of meaning) 由于二语学习者有限的二语知识和能力而使交际中断或停止时，操母语者对自己给出的输入进行简化和阐述，使输入成为 “可理解输入”(comprehensible input) 研究发现，通过“意义协商”，二语习得得到促进 “外国人的话”作为一种语域，对二语习得中的输入研究有借鉴作用，但现实生活中，只有操母语者与二语学习者共同参与才能完成言语事件 因此， 有必要对双方的整个交际过程进行研究，这便是话语分析，即通过分析交际双方的语料，找出他们构建话语的特征，以便了解在自然环境下， 在一对一的话语事件中,二语学习者是怎样习得该语言的， 以及“外国人的话”在二语习得中所起的作用。

然而， “外国人的话”和在其范围内所进行的“话语分析”也只是 46 自然环境中一对一、以交流思想为主要目的的活动，这与系统的、大规模的外语环境中一对多的有意识学习方式仍然有较大差别，故研究者们还开展了“课堂过程研究”(classroom process research) ，包括教师的话(teacher talk) 、课堂环境中的互动分析(interaction analysis) 和话语分析 Classroom Process Research Teacher Talk “教师的话”是作为一种与“外国人的话”相对的语域提出的，它主要研究在语言课(language lessons)和科目课(subject lessons) 课堂里教师所使用的语言的特征以及这种语言输入对学生外语学习的影响Gaies (1977)发现，“教师的话”的主要特征是：语言形式上的调整在各个水平的班级均存在，即发音更标准、词汇更简单、句子更短；不发生不合语法的调整 (ungrammatical modification) ；多发生互动性的调整 (interactional modification) Interaction Analysis Allright (1980) 把“互动分析”主要分为三类：话轮分析( a turn-taking analysis) 、话题分析( a topic analysis) 以及任务分析(a task analysis) 。

但是，Long(1980) 认为这种对课堂上的师生互动进行的分析， 由于无法确定等待考察的变量而使其难以揭示课堂话语特征 当从教学时的不同侧重点对课堂互动的特征进行描写时，Gloria Gil (2002) 认为课堂互动可分为两种互补模式： 即侧重于语言形式的教学模式和侧重于意义传递的自然模式(pedagogical and natural modes) 而且，这两种模式之间有重叠在这些课堂话语中既具有教学目的，又含有交际目的 Discourse Analysis 话语分析有别于互动分析之处在于，它不仅仅研究每句话(individual utterance) 的作用，而且还研究这些话语(utterances) 是怎样结合起来构成话语单位(discoursal unit) 的伯明翰大学的 Sinclair 等(1975,1981,1982) 所从事的话语分析研究主要集中三阶段话语(three phase discourse) ，因为这种话语在以教师为中心的课堂(teacher centered classroom)中很普遍这种“三阶段话语”具体表现为 IRF，即 Initiates，Responds，Feedback。

例如: T: Is the clock on the wall? (Initiates 发问) P: Yes , the clock is on the wall. (Responds 回答) T: Good. The clock is on the wall. (Feedback 反馈) 除 IRF 之外，McTear (1975) 还注意到了课堂上其他四种不同的话语类型，即：机械话语(mechanical) 、意义话语(meaningful) 、类交际话语(pseudo communicative) 和交际话语(communicative) 此外，Rod Ellis (1980 ,1984a) 也对课堂话语做了研究，他把课堂互动分为三种类型：核心目标(core goals) 、框架目标(framework goals) 、社交目标(social goals) 通过课堂互动研究(即教师的话、互动研究、话语分析)，我们能够得知在课堂环境中意义是怎样得到协商的，进而了解课堂环境中语言输入及互动的规律 Summary 妈妈的话”或“看护者的话”研究的是在母语环境中母语习得的情况； “外国人的话”和课堂互动研究则以二语习得或外语学习中的输入为语料，这三种语料之间既有联系，又有区别，前者对后两者提供借鉴。

而在后两者之中，“外国人的话”主要体现了二语的自然习得，课堂互动研究则反映了外语的有意识学习 当然， 自然习得与有意识学习间的界限也并非无法逾越，例如，在与外国人谈话时可以有意识地学习二语，课堂上也可无意识地习得该语言通过对这三类输入进行研究，我们可以发现二语/外语学习的一些特征和规律 三、输入、互动与习得路径 关于输入、互动对语言习得的路径 (route of SLA ，包括顺序 sequence 和次序 order) 的作 47 用，不同的研究者得出不同的结论根据“中介语理论”(Selinker 1972) 、“普遍语法理论”及二语习得研究者目前达成的共识， 作为外部因素， 输入总的来说对习得路径不产生重大影响，起决定性因素的是学习者自身的“语言习得机制”(LAD) ，即学习者内部因素但这并不意味着输入是可有可无的，因为学习者的习得机制再完善，大脑再发达，若没有外部输入的参与， 语言习得仍然是无法实现的 Ellis 把以下四种假设解释为输入对习得顺序和次序的影响 Frequency Hypothesis Hatch 和 Wagner Gough (1976) 首先提出了频率假设(frequency hypothesis) 。

他们认为，学习者习得语言的先后顺序取决于该语言成分在输入中出现频率的高低但实证研究结果表明，二者之间关系是复杂的有的研究(如 Lightbown 1980) 发现，疑问词在操母语者言语中出现频率与二语学习者言语中出现频率呈现出很高的相关性； 但Snow 和Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982) 所做的美国儿童学习荷兰语的研究则表明，输入频率与准确性之间无重要关系(准确性可以反映习得程度) Comprehensible Input 许多研究认为，可理解输入(comprehensible input) 是二语习得的重要成因，其中最著名的是Krashen 和 LongKrashen 提出了“输入假设(input hypothesis) ”其主要观点如下: 1）学习者遵循自然顺序，通过理解比自己当前的水平稍难一些的输入(i + 1) 自然地习得该语言；2）可理解输入对于二语习得是必要的,但不是充分的； 3）经过简化，语境和语言外线索的提示能使输入变得更易理解(comprehensible) ； 4）输出(即说话) 是习得之结果，而非原因，学习者输出不直接促进习得 Long 同意Krashen 的第3 点主张， 但他又强调了在意义协商过程中互动式调整(interactional modification) 所起的作用，换言之，Long 认为互动式输入比非互动式输入更重要。

Learner Output 针对输入假设中的第 4 点，即输出不直接促进习得，Swain (1985) 提出了相反的假设——可理解输出假设(output hypothesis) 她认为，为了获得较全面的语法能力，学习者需要有机会进行有意义的交际她还认为，当学习者交际出现中断或失败时，他们便不得不说得更简洁、更连贯、更恰当、更符合语法习惯；输入(听) 时不太需要分析句子结构(可借助语境、语言外线索等)， 但当需要输出(说) 时， 他便不得不从语义处理(自上而下) 转向语法处理(自下而上) ，即更多地注意表达方法，这可促使学习者在随后的习得中提高语法意识由此可见，在交际双方的互动过程中，可理解输出对二语习得能够起到促进作用 Collaborative Discourse 母语习得研究者已经发现， 儿童通过参与到谈话中去而习得了其母语的句法结构， 二语习得研究者也认为，二语习得者也可通过参与谈话而习得二语，如 Hatch (1978) 认为，“人们学会交流，学会口头交际，也正是通过这种交互活动，其句法结构能力才得到发展研究结果也表明，交际双方通过共同努力建构话语(discourse) 可以促进基本句法的习得，当然，合作性话语(collaborative discourse) 也存在一些缺点，由于学习者有时利用话语策略来弥补未学懂的词法特征而使该特征得不到学习，影响了词汇学习。

四、输入、互动与习得速度 关于输入对习得速度( rate of SLA) 之影响，众多关于课堂环境中输入的实证研究得出了不同的结论Snow 和 Hoefnagel-Hohle (1982) 发现，课堂上可理解输入的数量不能决定二语习得的速度； 而 Seliger (1977) 却发现课堂输入的数量与成绩有重要关系 但有一点可以肯定，在习得速度方面，输入确实是一个主要的因素另外，Fillmore (1982) 的研究结果也表明，输入的数量和质量均对习得速度产生较大影响Fillmore 对比了 12 名幼儿园学生学习二语的情况，发现输入对速度的影响主要取决于学生的组成成分(外语学习者与操母语者是否同班) ，以及课堂组织类型(以教师为主的还是自由开放的) 结果表明，下面两种情况对 48 二语习得产生较好影响： (1) 较多的二语学习者+以教师为主的课堂；(2) 二语学习者与操母语者同班+开放式教学 五、输入理论存在的问题 定义问题 从目前的文献来看，在二语习得理论中，各研究者都将“输入”看成是口头输入Ellis 就认为，“Input is used to refer to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. ”( Ellis 1985) 从这个定义可以看出， “输入”的词义非常具体，它不包括书面输入。

而且，在 Ellis 看来，即使涉及读也似乎跟输入是并列的两个概念 例如， Ellis 在讨论可理解输入与二语习得的关系时引用 Larson Freeman(1983a) 的研究，并指出，“There are cases of successful SLA when the only input is that obtained from reading or watching television. ”(R. Ellis 1985 :158) 另外，在讨论可理解输入与二语习得的关系时，也将大量阅读与口头输入割裂开来：“Extensive reading is related with vocabulary development and improved spelling. ”(R. Ellis 1994 :278) 在语言学范畴里，它应该包括口头和书面两种语料如果只谈听而不谈读，那是不全面，至少是不现实的特别是外国人在自己国家学外语，他们的周围不可能有许多的操母语者，根本无法仅仅通过听这一种输入来习得该语言，而且在他们本身已经具备识字能力的情况下，听和读是很难分开的胡明扬认为，外国人(例如非英语专业人士) 学外语主要是为了学到先进技术和文化，而先进技术和文化的载体更多的是书面语料。

因此，书面输入的几率和用途远远大于口头输入而且大多数中国学习者(包括英语专业和非英语专业) 的口语与阅读相比， 阅读要好得多 而且胡明扬、 黄源深、 陆谷孙、 陆国强、 王守仁等专家在 《英语学习》 、《外国语》 及 《英语世界》 等刊物上发表的许多文章中都指出， 阅读若达不到一定量(50 -100 本英文小说) ，那口语一定不会有实质性的提高，它就成了无源之水，无本之木况且，在现代社会中，知识老化速度非常迅速，外语本身也是必须终身追求的学问，外语教师和学生都是在不断地努力接近目的语目标， 而这个目标在很大程度上首先是通过阅读达到的 可见，特别是达到较高阶段时，开展阅读研究,将阅读纳入二语习得范畴是很有必要的它与口头输入结合起来一定会更好地解释二语习得的速度及最终取得的成果( rate and success of SLA) 研究对象问题 在关于输入的实证研究中，对象大多数是儿童、少年，所研究的语料也主要是他们与看护者(一语习得) 、操母语者(二语习得) 、教师(课堂外语学习) 之间的语料根据输入特征的描写，这些语料大多数是为了日常的交际，而且学习者由于年龄尚小，二语知识和语言策略都不够完善，智力发育也未成熟，他们所接触的语料较简单。

实际上，二语习得者既包括初学者、还包括中级学习者以及高级学习者，因此，仅选取这样的语料是不能反映更高级学习者的习得情况的 内容问题 在进行输入研究时，大多数研究都考察了语音、词汇、语法特征，如否定句、疑问句等的习得，而二语习得既涉及语音、词汇、句法习得，又涉及语义、语用等的习得，但在二语习得理论中较少涉及语义、语用的习得 研究方法问题 在输入研究中，国外研究主要从理论和实证研究的角度进行，即重分析、理性，而非综合、感性但是，实际上，在听、读大量的语料的过程中，二语习得者所写的综合、 感性的自述材料(如学习日记、 教学日记、 二语学习者关于自己学习二语的回忆文章等) ，都可以为二语习得提供素材，但二语习得理论中涉及较少 语言课和科目课问题 输入理论将“教师的话”等与所学的课程(语言课和科目课) 内容完全割裂开来，忽视了学习内容在输入研究中所起的作用 六、输入理论对外语教学的启示 启示之一：“输入”这一概念在中国学者的心目中，一直是既包括口头也包括书面，即听和读两种语料正如《英语学习》近四年推出的“英语专家如是说”栏目,《英语世界》推出的“识 49 途篇”栏目以及《外国语》从 2002 年第五期开始推出的“外语教育专家谈”，绝大多数专家都提到了通过大量听和大量读进行输入的作用。

这恐怕是中国学者与国外学者在输入理论方面的较大区别 启示之二： 在中国，学习外语的环境尽管已有了极大的改善，但我们的学习毕竟不是在目的语国家进行， 绝大多数人所得到的输入只能是通过有意识地听磁带、 网络广播以及靠课堂上听“教师的话”等，而不是输入理论里所讲的“听外国人的言语”，而这种语言环境与二语习得环境是不同的，因此，在中国搞外语习得研究，只能更多地进行课堂环境中的输入研究 启示之三：我们在学习时需要分析,但也需要综合分析能使我们提高对二语习得规律的认识，做到学习和教学时更加有的放矢同样,那种感性的、专家们饱含经验的回忆文章也对学习者产生极大的激励和震撼作用， 也是不可多得的宝贵语料 通过研究专家关于语言学习的经验，我们也可以发现一些规律性的东西，从而促进和完善外语学习理论的发展当然，国内所做的理论研讨和实证研究比较欠缺，这是应该向国外学习的 启示之四：作为外语教师，我们应该了解有关二语习得方面的理论，包括输入理论，只有了解了输入的规律、特征，才能更有效、更合理地给学生以输入其次，输入与互动总是密不可分的，因此，教师和学生都应尽可能多地与操母语者、其他教师及同学进行口头交流，尽量多读外文书刊、多听外文录音资料，增加输入量。

另外，应该同时发展听、说、读、写四种能力， 使输入和输出并重 最后， 还应该多看专家学者的学习经验介绍文章， 发现好方法，激发学习兴趣， 使自己的教学得到二语习得理论以及其他理论的指导 同时， 还要大胆实践，勤于反思，将理论与教学实践相结合，这不仅可以丰富二语习得理论，还可极大地提高外语教学的成效 Chapter 6 Learner Strategies in SLA Outline ➢ Literature Review ➢ Definition and Classification ➢ Communicative Strategies ➢ Functions of Learner Strategies I. Literature Review 对外语学习策略的研究发端于上世纪 60 年代1966 年，Aaron Caton 出版了 The Method of Inference in Foreign Language Study 一书，率先提出不同的外语学习者运用不同的推理方法学习外语1971 年，Caton 发表了第二篇论文，详细讨论了外语学习者推理策略他区分了三种不同类型的学习者推理策略：（1） 语内线索推理， 即利用对目的语已有的知识进行推理；（2）语际线索推理； （3）语外线索推理，即学习者利用对真实世界的知识进行推理。

他指出， 语言学习过程就像一个解决问题的过程， 学习者个人的经验和知识在语言处理过程中起着决定性的作用受 Carton 研究成果及学习理论研究的启发，Rubin 着手研究成功的外语学习者的学习策略，并在 1975 年发表了她的研究成果，认为成功的外语学习者在心理特征和学习方法上有着许多惊人的相似之处，其中包括： （1）心理特征，如冒险心理、对歧义和模糊的容忍等； （2）交际策略，如迂回表达、运用副语言手段等； （3）社交策略，如寻找交流和实践的机会； （4）认知策略，如语义猜测、推理及对语言形式进行分析、归类、综合和监控等 加拿大学者 Stern(1975 ) 受 Rubin 的影响，更是把成功者和不成功者的学习策略进行对比,总结出成功者必备的十大学习策略除了一部分策略与 Rubin 的发现有重复外,Stern 还增加了“个性化学习方式”、“移情”和“内化”等学习策略这十大学习策略分别是： 第一.有个人独特的学习风格或积极的学习策略;第二，对学习任务积极主动去做;  50 第三，在目标语意思不清楚时能加以容忍，能与讲母语的人融为一体; 第四，知道如何对待语言问题; 第五， 有把所学习的新语言总结成为有条理的体系的实际策略， 并能在学习中逐步加以修改; 第六，经常探索对语义的理解; 第七，乐意操练; 第八，乐意运用语言进行真正的交际; 第九，自我检查语言运用，对语言使用时出现的问题敏感; 第十，不断发展目标语使之成为独立的参照系统，并学会用目标语思维。

1981 年，Rubin 提出划分外语学习者策略类别的标准：对外语学习者发生作用的直接程度按照这一标准，Rubin 把学习者策略划分为两个大类： （1）直接影响外语学习的学习过程，如解释和证实、监控、记忆、演绎、概括和实践等； （2）间接影响外语学习的学习过程，如创造实践和使用交际技巧的机会等 也是在 1975 年，Naiman 等人根据 Stern 提出的外语学习者必需的十大学习策略对外语学习者的个人性格、 认知风格和策略进行了研究 根据被调查者的问卷答案和建议，Naiman 对 Stern 提出的学习策略进行了修正，列举了成功的外语学习者所采用的五大策略： ①通过寻找和利用有利的学习环境积极参与语言学习过程； ②建立语言作为一个形式系统的意识； ③建立语言作为一种交际和交际手段的意识； ④接受并妥善处理外语学习过程的情感需求；⑤通过推理和监控扩充和修正自己的外语系统 1987 年，Wenden 和 Rubin 编辑出版了 Learner Strategies in Second Language Learning 论文集内容涉及到学习者策略研究的历史分类和方法、学习者策略的具体研究、如何训练学习者的学习策略等。

1990年， O’Malley和 Chamot出版了 Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition 一书，这是一部以认知学习理论为框架论述外语学习者策略的著作该书详细介绍了当代认知学习理论对外语学习过程的研究成果， 认为学习策略可以分为元认知策略、 认知策略和社会情感策略同时，该书还对学生的学习策略训练提出了许多有益的建议 学习策略在中国的研究开始于上世纪 90 年代1994 年， 《现代外语》上分别发表了题为Learner Strategies: A Key Factor in SLL和 The Study of L2 Learner Strategy and Its Implications for FLT 的研究论文学习策略在中国的研究开始受到广泛关注 II. Definition and Classification  What is a language learner strategy (LLS)?  What common types of strategies have been identified?  How do strategies work?  Are language learner strategies useful?  Are strategies changeable? Definitions: 1.Strategy is general tendencies or overall characteristics of the approach employed by the language learner, leaving techniques as the term to refer to particular forms of observable learning behavior. Stern（1983） ：“策略最好用于泛指语言学习者采用方法的一般趋势或总体特点、技巧等用于描述可视行为的具体形式。

2.Learning strategies are the behaviors and thoughts that a learner engages in during learning that are intended to influence the learner’s encoding process. Weinstein & Mayer (1986)：“是学习语言时的做法或想法，这些做法和想法旨在影响学习者的编码过程 3.Learning strategies are techniques, approaches or deliberate actions that students take in order to facilitate the learning, recall of both linguistic and content area information. Chamot (1987)：“是学生采取的技巧、方法或者刻意的行动，目的是为了提高学习效果和易于回忆语言的形式及内容  51 4.Learning strategies are strategies which contribute to the develop-ment of the language system which the learner constructs and affect learning directly. Rubin (1987)：“是有助于学习者自我建构的语言系统发展的策略，直接影响语言的发展。

5.Language learning strategies are behaviors or actions which learners use to make language learning more successful, self-directed and enjoyable. Oxford (1990)：“是学习者为了使语言学习更加成功、更加自主、更加愉快所采取的行为或行动 6.Learners’ conscious and semi-conscious thoughts and behaviors, to improve the knowledge and understanding of L2, as well as strategies for using the language that has been learned or for getting around gaps in language proficiency. Cohen (1998)： “指学习者有意识或无意识的行为和心理活动，有着明确的目标一种目标是使语言知识和语言技能的学习更加容易，另一种目标是为了语言的运用或弥补学习者语言知识的不足。

对以上定义，有四点疑问： （1） 策略究竟是指可视行为， 还是指大脑中无法观察到的心理活动， 还是两者兼而有之？(observable behavior or mental activities, or both?) （2）策略是指某人学习语言方法的总体特点，还是指完成某个具体任务所采取的技巧？ (general tendency or specific techniques?) （3）学习策略是有意识还是无意识的？(conscious or unconscious?) (4）策略能否对语言的发展产生直接的作用？ (direct or indirect?) 至今关于这几个疑问还没有一个明确的答案研究者认为学习策略在第二语言学习中不仅是一种方法也是一种技巧，既是外显的又是内在的不同学习者会根据自己的喜好选择不同的学习策略用通俗一点的话来说，学习者策略实际上就是学习者在获取学习机会、巩固学习成果、解决学习问题时做出的种种反应和采取的策略 Classifications: 学习策略的分类问题：有 Oxford 和 Cohen 的二分法、O’Malley & Chamot 的三分法以及 Cohen 的多元分类法。

Oxford（1990）的二分法： 1. 直接策略（direct strategies） 记忆策略（memory strategies） ：包括建立联系网络、运用形和声音、 认 真复习、运用动作；认知策略（cognitive strategies） ：包括训练、接受和 传送信息、分析和推理、为检索信息建立规则；补偿策略（compensation strategies） ：包括猜测、克服说写中语言知识的不足 2. 间接策略（indirect strategies） 元认知策略（metacognitive strategies） ：包括建立学习重点、安排和计划 学习、评价学习；情感策略（affective strategies） ：包括降低焦虑程度、 鼓励自己、了解自己的情感状态；社交策略（social strategies） ：包括询 问问题、和别人合作、同情别人 Cohen（1998）的二分法 Two-way classification 1. 学习语言的策略（language learning strategies） 识别材料（identifying the material for learning） ：识别需要学习的材料。

区分材料（distinguishing it from other material） ：将要学的材料与其它材料区别开来 组织材料（grouping it for easier learning） ：将语言材料归类，以便学习 反复接触材料（repeatedly engaging oneself in contact with the material） ：重复练习语言材料 有意识记 （remembering it with efforts） ：努力记住语言知识  52 2. 运用语言的策略（language using strategies） 检索策略（retrieval strategies） ：为从大脑提取语言形式而采取的措施 排练策略（rehearsal strategies） ：为反复练习语言形式而采取的措施 掩盖策略（cover strategies） ：为掩盖自己语言知识不足所采取的措施 交际策略（communication strategies） ：为顺利进行交际活动而采取的措施 O’Malley & Chamot (1990) 的三分法 Cognitive strategies –the learning strategies of identification, grouping, retention, and storage of language material, as well as the language use strategies of retrieval, rehearsal, and comprehension or production of words, phrases, etc. 重复（repetition） 翻译（translation） 归类（grouping） 记笔记（note-taking） 利用关键词（key word）利用上下文情景（contextualization）拓展（elaboration） 迁移（transfer）推测（inferencing） Metacognitive strategies – processes learners consciously use to supervise or manage their language learning and allow learners to control their own cognition by planning what they will do, checking how it is going, and then evaluating how it went. l 提前准备（advance organizers） l 集中注意（directed attention） l 选择注意（selective attention） l 自我管理（self-management） l 事先练习（advance preparation） l 自我监控（self-monitoring） l 延迟表达（delayed production） l 自我评价（self-evaluation） Affective strategies – strategies for regulating emotions, motivation, and attitudes; strategies for reduction of anxiety and for self-encouragement Social strategies–strategies for interacting with other learners and with native speakers for practice. 协作 （cooperation） 提问澄清 （question for clarification） 求助 （question for help) Cohen（2006）的多元区分法： 1. 按目标：语言学习策略（如翻译、背诵）和语言使用策略（如检索、交流策略） 2. 按作用：元认知策略、认知策略和社交/情感策略 3. 按技能：听力、口语、阅读、 词汇和翻译等策略。

4. 其他标准：按使用频率、特定文化或专业语言的策略 在学习策略分类问题上存在不同的看法，主要是由于分类时所采用的依据和标准不同 比如，Rubin 在区分学习者策略包括：学习策略、交际策略和社交策略时，依据的是学习策略是否对学习过程产生直接影响这一标准他认为，直接对学习产生影响的策略包括认知学习策略和元认知策略；间接对学习过程产生影响的策略包括交际策略和社交策略这种分类方式的优点是直接、明了、概括性强，缺点是无法区分输入和输出策略，交际策略和社交策略中还缺少协调策略的成分再比如，Naiman 提出的成功的外语学习者所采用的五大策略：①通过寻找和利用有利的学习环境积极参与语言学习过程；②建立语言作为一个形式系统的意识；③建立语言作为一种交际和交际手段的意识；④接受并妥善处理外语学习过程的情感需求；⑤通过推理和监控扩充和修正自己的外语系统这一分类的优点是简洁，而且从语言和语言学习的本质出发，抓住了问题的实质但缺点是分类过于宽泛，内容不是十分明确 III. Communication Strategies 交际策略最早出现在 Selinker 1972 一篇讨论有关中介语问题的论文中此后，出现了一大批以交际策略为研究课题的论文和专著。

这些研究根据研究者的兴趣及视角可分为两个方向一个方向以 Corder、Tarone、Faerch 和 Kasper 等人为代表，他们主要从中介语和错误分析角度探讨交际策略的意义、分类、交际作用等问题，其中还包括 Tarone 和 Bialystok 53 等人从实验的角度，通过对以上问题及影响交际策略的有关因素的考察和研究另一方向以 Rubin 和 O’Malley 等人为代表，他们主要从学习者角度，通过对成功的外语学习者学习行为的观察和分析，描述导致他们成功的外语学习的策略，以便使这些策略也可以为其他一般的外语学习者采用 Definitions Selinker （1972）提出，中介语的形成和发展受到 5 个方面因素的作用它们分别是：母语迁移；目的语规则泛化；训练迁移；学习策略；交际策略然而，Selinker 虽然意识到学习者策略对中介语形成的作用，但并没有对交际策略的内涵和外延作出明确的界定 Corder（1978）在其 Strategies of Communication 一文中给交际策略下了这样的定义：说话者在交际困难时运用的一套呈系统的技巧Corder 的定义有几点值得注意：1.交际策略有一定的系统性，并非杂乱无章；2.交际策略是在说话者语言知识不足而引起表达上的困难是所采用的；3.交际策略是一套技巧，技巧运用的熟练程度和频率因人而异。

Corder 同时指出，交际策略应包括接受（即理解）和表达两个方面然而绝大多数对交际策略的研究仅限于表达方面，几乎没有涉及到理解的交际策略 Faerch 和 Kasper 指出，交际策略有两个明显特点第一，它是针对某一问题的（problem-oriented） ，即交际策略是在说话者因语言知识不足无法执行其原定计划时采取的某些行动；第二，它是在说话者能意识得到的情况下采取的说话者首先意识到了问题的存在他们对交际策略的定义是：交际策略是用来解决某一个人在达成某一特定交际目的时构成某一问题的潜在可意识的计划 Faerch和Kasper 特别强调， 他们的定义中用了“某一个人”而不是“学习者”，隐含着这一定义同样适用于母语使用者 Tarone（1981）在界定交际策略时将“相互作用”作为交际策略的标准之一认为，communication strategies are seen as attempts to bridge a gap between the linguistic knowledge of the L2 learner and the linguistic knowledge of the learner’s interlocutor in real communication situations. They are characterized by the “negotiation of an agreement on meaning” between interlocutors. That is, Tarone sees communication strategies as the learner’s contribution to the interactional work required to overcome a communication problem. Ellis thinks that communication strategies are psycholinguistic plans which exist as part of the language user’s communicative competence. They are potentailly conscious and serve as substitutes for production plans which the learner is unable to implement. 作为语言使用者交际能力的一部分，交际策略是一种语言心理计划。

这种计划具有潜在的可意识性，可以作为学习者对无法完成的某一表达计划的替代 Tarone (1981) classifies communication strategies as follows: 1. Paraphrase (转述) A: approximation （近似表达）B: word coinage（造词）C: circumlocution （迂回） 2. Borrowing （借用）A: literal translation （直译）B: language switch （语言转换） 3. Asking for help（求助）:Ask for a correct expression from the interlocutor directly 4. Gesture （手势语）: Substitute nonverbal means for verbal means 5. Avoidance（回避）: A: topic avoidance（回避某一话题） B: message abandonment（放弃表达某一信息） Bialystok classifies communication strategies on different languages as follows: 1. L1 based strategies: A: language switch B: foreignizing （本国语项目外语化）C: literal translation 2. L2 based strategies  54 A: 语义替代：即用熟悉的具有相同语义特征的词汇代替某个生词 B: 描述：对某一事物的一般物理属性、特征和功能特点进行描述 C: 创造新词 这一分类吸收了前者的优点，可以使人们对不同的交际策略的功能一目了然。

同时，可以使研究者或教师根据学习者所采用的不同交际策略判别其目的语的熟练程度缺点是忽略了回避之类策略的归属所以，这一分类也是不完整的 假设：当学习者遇到困难时，通常有两种选择，一是回避，二是设法解决回避的方法是采用减缩策略，以此调整原来的交际目标；设法解决即采用成就策略 Functions Communication strategies serve to: ① steer conversation away from problematic areas, ② express meaning in creative ways (e.g., by paraphrasing a word/concept), ③ create more time to think (e.g., by using fillers or other hesitation devices), ④ negotiate the difficult parts of the communication until everything is clear. IV. Effects of Learning Strategies Usefulness: LLS research:Current wisdom in the field “With some exceptions, strategies themselves are not inherently good or bad, but have the potential to be used effectively.” “The total number or variety of strategies employed and the frequency with which any given strategy is used are not necessarily indicators of how successful they will be on a language task”. (Cohen, 1998, pp.8-9) The success or failure of a strategy hinges upon the orchestration of different components of the strategic behaviour. From selectively attending to a task, to the analysis of the task, to the choice of decisions, to strategy deployment and execution, to monitoring and modifying of the plan, and to the evaluation of strategy effectiveness, flexibility and appropriateness come in every step of the way (Gu, 2003).Strategies can be more or less person-related, task-related, or learning context related. A strategy suitable for one particular person, task, or learning context may not be suitable for another (Gu, 2003). Implications: ➢ The strategies that learner elect to use reflect their general stage of L2 development. For example, there is some evidence to suggest that strategies that relate to the functional use of language and involve processing chunk of language precede those that involve close attention to form and single words. Metacognitive strategies are more evident inadvanced learners. ➢ Successful learners appear to use learning strategies more frequently and in qualitatively different way than learners who are less successful. ➢ Successful language learning involves attention to both form and meaning.Good language learners appear able to swtich the focus of the attention while they are performing a task. ➢ Different kinds of learning strategies may contribute to different aspects of L2 proficiency. Thus, strategies that involve formal practice may contribute to the development of linguistic competence, while strategies involving functional practice aid the development of communicative competence. ➢ Learner need to employ strategies flexibly by selecting those strategies that are appropriate for performing a particular learning task.  55 ➢ Metacognitive strategies involving goal identification, planning, monitoring, and evaluation assume considerable importance. ➢ The more successful adult learners are better able to talk about the strategies they use. ➢ The learning strategies used by children and adults may differ; social and interactional strategies may be more important with young learners. V. Learning Strategies of Chinese Students Investigations ➢ All students choose individual learning as the first major strategy; kinesthetic a second learning style, with no exception. ➢ Students have some differences in visual and auditory learning. On the whole, most students are more visual than auditory. ➢ Female students have more multiple learning strategy preferences than male students. They involve more physical senses in English learning than their male counterparts. ➢ 94% of the students have negative attitude towards group learning. Only 6% indicated group learning as a minor learning strategy. ➢ There is no significant difference between English and non-English majors in learning strategy preference in English learning. ➢ We should allow students more free time to study individually. ➢ We should provide more time and opportunities for practice to let students learn by doing things in English for better language performance. ➢ Students’ability to employ multiple learning styles results in greater classroom success. In other words, when students involve more senses in learning, they learn better. ➢ Our textbooks should present learning materials in various ways and more active exercises be designed to improve the students ’ English proficiency and communicative performance. ➢ Identify learning style preferences leads to the development of some appropriate teaching styles to match them. Cultivation ➢ Training and practice should be intense and constant in order to minimize the strong effect of the previous negative learning strategies. ➢ Training should be diversified and not limited to one and the same strategy only, because there are more than one good learning strategies leading to the success of foreign language learning. ➢ Strategy straining should not be isolated from language teaching because the purpose of training is, above all, to improve language learning. ➢ Emphasis should be laid on repeated practice of good strategy rather than on rote memorization. Written principles of good strategy will not become effective unless they integrate into the students’learning habits. ➢ Students should be encouraged to exchange their learning experience and methods in and after class and learn from one another. Significance  56 ➢ Teachers can benefit from an understanding of what makes learners successful and unsuccessful, and establish in the classroom an atmosphere for the realization of successful strategies and help students develop or improve their learning strategies where they weak. ➢ It is useful to the curriculum designer, who, based on communicative and “learner-centered” approch, need to emphasize the cognitive, affective and sociocultural factors when planning the teaching. ➢ It is also important in the compilation of textbooks and other teaching materials. Chapter Seven The Universal Hypothesis and Second Language Acquisition I. Literature Review 在西方语言研究史上，普遍语法的概念由来已久。

早在古希腊时代，希腊斯多噶人就猜测语言的外部形式显示了人类本质具有内在的一致性 中世纪和文艺复兴时期的语言学者在比较欧洲地方语言时也假设语言有普遍性在 13 世纪时有人曾指出：无论是谁只要掌握了一门语言的语法就等于掌握了另一门语言的语法…… 如果他不会说或不懂那门语言的话， 那只是因为语法范围之外的词汇和形态妨碍了他到了 17 世纪，许多语言学家和哲学家在进行哲学反思时也注意到语言存在着普遍性理性主义者和经验主义者为此曾展开论争19 世纪时以布龙菲尔德和沃尔夫为代表的经验主义者则对语言普遍性感到怀疑， 他们通过对美国印第安语言的研究， 认为每一种语言都是独立而又互不关联的， 语言之间几乎没有任何相似之处 由于结构主义者将眼光只投向句子差异很大的表层结构， 这种研究方法不可避免地使他们将语言的描写限制在具体运用的语句上， 而忽略了抽象的句子深层的相似性 尽管如此，结构主义者仍对语言作出了一些有普遍意义的归纳： 如每种语言在具体的文化背景中， 都可以表达任何想要表达的事情； 任何语言都能通过增加新词汇而得到扩展， 以应付不断产生的新事物等等19 世纪德国语言学家冯保特则是从人类语言习得角度去探讨语言普遍性的。

他认为， 习得语言总的来说是人类天生语言能力的一个成熟过程， 这个过程以内在因素和与生俱来的语言形式为介导 而语言学习经验会使这种语言形式不断变异， 最终实现语言习得 语言的共同性（普遍性）指语言所共有的特征或语言范畴语言普遍性是针对沃尔夫的语言关联性和结构主义者只研究语言的差异性而提出来的 在研究语言共同性问题上， 有过两次重要的学术会议，标志着两种重要的倾向 第一次是 1961 年 4 月在纽约召开的语言共同性会议，参加者有人类学家、心理学家和语言学家，包括格林伯格、朱斯、奥斯古德等格林伯格把会议论文收集编成一本颇有影响的书《语言共同性》 （Universals of Language） 第二次会议于 1967 年 4 月在得克萨斯召开，叫做语言理论共同性讨论会，参加者多为语言学家会后，巴赫等人出版了一本文集： 《语言理论的共同性》 （Universals in Linguistic Theory） 两次会议在下面三个问题上是对立的  以什么作为数据基础？以格林伯格为代表，认为应广泛收集各种语言的数据，理由是语言的差异性太大，必须做各种跨语言的研究，才能归纳出一些语言的共同现象。

另一派以乔姆斯基为代表，认为只要深入研究一种语言就足够了理由是语言是内在的，因此所有人类语言共有的原则也是内在的语言的共同性是研究抽象原则的，没有必要去研究那些表面结构的异同  抽象化程度有多大？以格林伯格为代表，认为共同性的分析应在具体的结构，即表面结构的水平上进行乔姆斯基认为应在深层结构的水平上进行，因为语言共同性无非是抽象结构与更为具体的结构之间的关系制约，自然要有相当程度的抽象格 57 派也没有反对抽象化，而是主张抽象化可在表层结构的层次上进行，而且抽象的共同性必须通过实际的检验才能证明其有效性  对现有的共同性如何去解释？乔姆斯基等人认为，语言共同性可分为两类，一为实体共同性，指一些共同的语言范畴，如动词、名词、主语、元音等；另一类为形式共同性，指语法规则形式的描述，例如“没有哪一种语言能够把词序颠倒就能构成问句” 然而，实体共同性和形式共同性的界限并不很清楚后来乔姆斯基自己索性把二者合而为一，称为形式共同性，另外提出了一个功能共同性的概念，用以表示将语法规则应用来描写语言材料的方式格林伯格不主张这种区分法，强调将语言共同性分为有关联和无关联两种语言中有些共同性的存在是不以其它特性为条件的，这是无关联的，如“所有口头语言都必须有元音” 。

但是有些特性却是互有联系的，如“如果一个语言的基本词序为动词--主语--宾语，它就要有前置词” 格林伯格重在有关联的共同性研究 II. Universal Grammar  普遍语法是乔姆斯基语言学理论的一个核心思想，贯穿其中的是他的心智主义认识论基础，试图回答：人脑究竟具有什么属性才使人说话或学会说话？ 乔姆斯基语言学理论的认识论基础：所谓语言学认识论问题也就是人的语言能力和知识究竟是从哪里来的问题在这个问题上，结构主义语言学派认为人脑生来是白板一块，这块白板在后天经验中通过机械的 “刺激—反应” 方式学会了说话， 这是人们常说的 “行为主义”  乔姆斯基对“行为主义”提出质疑 如果人生下来的时候大脑是块白板，那么狗的大脑也应该是白板一块，这样人和其它动物就没有任何先天的差别；同样是白板的大脑，同样是刺激—反应，为什么小孩自然而然就学会说话，而其它动物则不能；把上述两个方面逻辑地联系起来，把会讲话的能力归结为后天经验刺激的结果无法解释人会讲话而狗不会讲话的事实 按照行为主义的认识论思考问题，势必会导致否认语言是人同其它动物有所区别的一种种属差别，引出一种以“人狗不分”为认识论基础的语言学理论。

乔姆斯基的普遍语法思想的形成，正是从彻底批判行为主义开始的 乔姆斯基所说的小孩能够讲出他在经验中从未听到过的句子，也就是说听到的少于能说出来的，也是行为主义无法解释的行为主义的认识论完全否认或忽略了人作为认识主体在经验中获得知识、能力的能动作用  心智主义认识论的基本含义 小孩生下来之前，大脑就具有遗传下来的人种属性，其中包括一个可以使人在后天环境作用下学会使用人类语言的生物学属性，因此人的语言能力的获得和形成是人脑固有属性和后天经验相互作用的结果 乔姆斯基之前的语言学研究不承认或不理会人脑在语言能力获得中的作用，否认人类语言的生物属性，而乔姆斯基的语言学思想正是在承认并研究人类语言的生物学属性的基础上同传统语言学分道扬镳的 什么是普遍语法？ 自五十年代“句法结构”问世以来, 乔姆斯基发表了一系列著作和文章阐明他的语言学观点他说“普遍语法是构成语言学习者初始状态的一组特征、条件或其他东西，在这基础上语言知识得以发展 ” 在总结以往研究经验的基础上, 他还明确地提出普遍语法与生俱有的本质与双重性， “普遍语法既是语法性质的理论, 也是语言初始的生物基础 它一方面寻求解释在极其有限的语言经历下儿童迅速而又无例外地掌握语言的能力，另一方面又解释人类语言语法系统的丰富内容和复杂性。

” 正是由于它的双重性质, 普遍语法 58 必须满足两个基本条件，首先它必须与所有语言的语法多样性保持一致；其次它必须在受到各种限制和制约的条件下解释语言本质在人的大脑中得以发展的事实 基于以上两点，普遍语法理论必须涉及以下三个方面：第一，人的“语法能力” ，即在语言的使用环境中将人的交际目的与所具备的语言手段相联系的能力由于具备这种语法能力，语言使用者能完全掌握所使用的语言，并不受与语言无关的条件如记忆受限、注意分散、兴趣交替以及发生错误的影响，在交际中运用他的语言知识 第二，必须有包含各种具体语言规则的总体原则这些原则支配着各种语言规则可能设立和变化的范围由于它具有制约性，普遍语法可以预测在其范围内的语言变异 第三，核心语法和边缘语法的区别核心语法是儿童在习得语言的过程中通过普遍语法和相应的语言环境的相互作用而在头脑里发展的主要部分边缘语法是核心语法的外围，它不像核心语法那样反映出普遍语法的原则由普遍语法决定并在语言学习中占支配地位的是核心语法 Universal grammar is the systems of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages…the essence of human language. (Chomsky, 1976) 普遍语法是由人类所有语言所共有的原则、 条件和规则组成的系统， 是人类语言的本质所在。

All human beings share part of their knowledge of language, UG is their common possession regarless of which language they speak. UG is a theory of knowledge, not of behavior; its concern is with the internal structure of the human mind. The nature of this knowledge is inseparable from the problem of how it is acquired; a proposal for the nature of language knowledge necessitates an explanation of how such knowledge came into being. 普遍语法被设想为“与生俱有”的它概括了人类语言的原则，这种原则反映在人类语言习得的倾向性和策略上Cook（1985）指出： “普遍语法由人类大脑中天生的语言性能构成。

它并不包括某一种特定语言的语法，而是有着适应所有语言语法的一套原则，并带有一些开放性参项 ”这种“天生”的概念是普遍语法的基础，但也常被人当成是唯心主义理论的证明普遍语法的“天生”概念并不意味着人一出生就会使用语言，它所指的是人具有的语言潜能与倾向一旦人被置身于特定的语言环境，语言学习的潜能就会因为与语言环境的相互作用而逐渐发展成语言习得普遍语法的原则都是语言研究者们力图寻求和建立的作为语法理论，普遍语法必须有一套原则、条件及规则系统这个系统的内容必然要成为所有人类语言本质的组成部分它能摒除不同语法中无关联的因素，而将人类语言中共同一致的原则和规则给予确定  普遍语法要回答的主要问题 What constitutes knowledge of language? The linguist’s primary duty is to describe what people know about language–whatever it is that they have in their mind when they know English or French or any language, as we see later more precisely, a grammar. How is such knowledge acquired? A second aim is to discover how people acquire this knowledge. Studying acquisition of language knowledge means first establishing what the knowledge that is acquired actually consists of, i.e. on first answering question above. How is such knowledge put to use? A third aim is to see how people use this acquired language knowledge. Investigating how knowledge is used depends on first establishing what knowledge is. What are the physical mechanisms that serve as the material basis for this system of knowledge and for the use of this knowledge? There must be some physical correlation to this mental knowledge, in other words some link between mind and brain.  59 What constitutes knowledge of language? Chomsky’ s work distinguishes Externalized language from Internalized language. E-language linguistics, chiefly familiar from the American structuralist trandition such as Bloomfield, aims to collect samples of language and then to describe their properties.E-language linguistics collects sentences “understood independently of the properties of the mind”; E-language research constructs a grammar to describe the regularities found in such a sample: “a grammar is a collection of descriptive statements concerning the E-language.The linguist’s task is to bring order to the set of external facts that make up the language. The resulting grammar is described in terms of properties of such data through “structures” and “patterns” . I-language linguistics is concerned with what a speaker knows about language and where this knowledge comes from; it treats language as an internal property of the human mind rather than something external: language is “a system represented in the mind / brain of a particular individual”. Chomsky’s first goal for linguistics – discovering what constitutes language knowledge – is an I-language aim. Competence consists of the mental representation of linguistic rules which constitute the speaker-hearer’s internalized grammar. Performance consists of the comprehension and production of language. Grammatical Competence, the cognitve state that encompasses all those aspects of form and meaning and their relation, including underlying structures that enter into that relation, which are properly assigned to the specific subsystem of the human mind that relates representations of form and meaning. The grammar of competence describes I-language in the mind, distinct from the use of language, which depends upon the context of situation, the intentions of the participants and other factors. The description of linguistic competence provides the answer to the question of what constitutes knowledge of language. Chomsky’s notion of competence has been attacked for failing to deal with how language is used, and the concept of communicative competence has been proposed to remedy the lack (Hymes, 1972). Chomsky accepts that language is used purposefully, and he introduces the term pragmatic competence – knowledge of how language is related to the situation in which it is used. Pragmatic competence places language in the institutional setting of its use, relating intentions and purposes to the linguistic means at hand. Chomsky’ s acceptance of a notion of pragmatic competence does not mean he agrees that the sole purpose of language is communication. Language can also serve many other purposes: to establish relations among people, to express or clarify thought, for creative meantal activity, to gain understanding, and so on. Language serves essentially for the expression of thought. In all Chomskyan models a characteristic of competence is its creative aspect; the speaker’s knowledge of language must be able to cope with sentences that it has never heard or produced before. III. UG and L1 Acquisition 乔姆斯基语言习得理论认为“要习得一种语言，儿童必须提出与他听到的语言相应的假设，并从他潜在的普遍语法中选出适合于他获得的语言数据的那一种。

从逻辑上讲很可能他得到的语言词句极其丰富，而潜在的语法类别却极其有限，这样只能有一种语法与他获得的语言数据相匹配，语言习得就告成了 ”(Chomsky 1971) 儿童头脑里的普遍语法之所以能逐渐成为运用自如的语言还因为有语言环境的激发语言习得就是人类头脑的语言本质受到某种语言经验的驱使而逐渐成熟的过程 行为主义者与乔姆斯基在语 60 言习得理论方面最根本的区别在于前者过于强调语言环境的作用，而忽视了人在语言习得中的积极主导作用以及人所具备的区别于一切其他动物的内在语言能力这种习得理论是单向的和片面的，因此不能对语言习得做出合理解释乔姆斯基理论在肯定外部语言条件的重要性之时，更强调人的语言潜能只有在具备语言能力的前提下加上与外部语言环境的相互作用以及其他一系列因素，才能完成语言习得 IV. UG and L2 Acquisition 虽然 Chomsky 的普遍语法模式是针对儿童的母语习得提出来的，但是由于它提供了一个研究人脑的语言知识的构造和习得方式，具有普遍意义的理论框架在此框架下，不同语言的习得过程可以互相比较，因此受到二语习得理论家的重视，并广泛地应用于对二语习得机制的解释。

人们普遍关心的是普遍语法是否同样作用于二语习得，即是否为二语学习者可及围绕着普遍语法对第二语言习得是否可及存在着四种不同的观点：直接可及说、间接可及说、部分可及说和不可及说 普遍语法直接可及说【UG accessibility】 有不少学者提出普遍语法可及性观点，即在第二语言习得中普遍语法制约语法的形成认为第二语言学习和第一语言学习一样受相同的原则引导，语言的相关性能很好地预示第二语言学习的速度他们以儿童第一语言运用和成人第二语言运用中呈现相似的语素（以此鉴定习得顺序）和错误类型为依据，证明普遍语法对第二语言习得的作用学习者关于语言形成的假设虽不一定与目的语情况相符，却一定与普遍语法对自然语言的制约相吻合第二语言的语法不违背普遍语法的原则第二语言学习者能直接完整地利用普遍语法,包括母语中尚未体现的部分， 他们体察第二语言输入中的恒定属性， 激活在母语中不起作用的那部分普遍语法原则 持这一观点的人认为第二语言学习者能够直接运用U G原则, 而且可以在不必参考母语参数值的情况下重新设定参数; 语言的基本原则和参数是大脑中固有的, 通过第二语言的输入, 学习者利用 U G 获得与母语能力(Ss) 相当的第二语言能力( St ) 。

这一观点在Flynn 所提出的参数设定模式(parameter-setting model) 中得到体现Flynn 认为“在第一语言习得中所显示出来的基本的语言官能, 在第二语言习得中同样至关重要 ” 在其模式中, 如果第一语言与第二语言的参数值相同, 那么第二语言中复杂句的习得方式相当于第一语言习得的后期阶段如果第一语言与第二语言的参数值相异, 则第二语言习得的方式相当于第一语言习得的早期阶段 有些学者发现 U G 在第二语言习得中并不是完全起作用, 于是便提出了 U G 在第二语言习得中不起作用或间接起作用等观点 普遍语法间接可及说 Schachter 等人不完全排除普遍语法在成人第二语言习得中的作用，认为它是间接可及的，也就是说，普遍语法通过母语对第二语言习得起作用他的理由是：第一，第二语言学习者的语法能力有明显的缺陷，无法达到本族语者的语法能力第二，儿童学习任何第一语言都具有同样的潜力，成年人学习与他的母语距离近的第二语言要比学习距离远的语言容易第三，第一语言对第二语言学习起促进或干扰作用第四，成年人第二语言学习有错误僵化现象，儿童学习第一语言不存在这一问题总之，间接可及说认为成人学习者只能利用母语中己具体化的普遍语法原则。

根据这一观点, U G 通过学习者已有的母语知识间接地起作用参数值的确定是在第一语言能力已经获得的基础上确定的, 因此参数值可以第二次确定, 第二语言知识依赖于母语知识White 发现西班牙学习者会在学习初期将母语中代词脱落这一参数带到第二语言中去 Flynn 发现在学习英语句子时, 西班牙和日本学习者的中心词取向存在参数上的差异, 他们在理解英语句子时都会受到各自第一语言语序的影响王文斌调查中国学习者在学习英语的反身代词时, 发现中国高级英语学习者对英语反身代词的理解仍然受 61 汉语母语迁移的影响杨小璐研究发现英语赘语(指表时间、天气的 it 和引导存现句的there) 能触发中国学生放弃按汉语中使用零主目的习惯从而正确设定英语语法的参数值 这些都表明, U G 是通过母语对第二语言学习间接产生作用, 参数值以第一语言为基础进行重设 普遍语法部分可及说 部分可及说赞成普遍语法原则对第二语言学习者仍然起作用的观点，但他们认为这种作用只是部分的、非全部的，在方式上也是直接的，并非都是间接的与间接可及说不同的是，部分可及说以普遍语法和各种子集(subcomponents)而不是以第一语言作为出发点来研究普遍语法对第二语言学习的可及性。

Felix 和 Weigl 认为，如果普遍语法对这些学生没有起作用，那么他们答题就是无规律的换言之，这些学生没有系统地选择正确答案，却系统地选择了错误的答案既然学习者没有造出“野性”语法来，可以说，普遍语法在部分地起作用在他们看来，第二语言习得与第一语言习得只有部分相同,所以成年学习者很难完全达到与本族人相同的语言水平这一观点对带参数的原则和无参数的原则作了区分在第二语言学习过程中对所有语言都起作用的原则仍会发挥限制作用, 但不是所有的参数项都会起作用Schachter 指出学习者可能会使用语言原则, 但却不会使用到全部的参数Schachter 提出了两个假设:(1) 成年人学习者不会产生 “非可能的语法” (wild grammar) , 因为他们受到 U G 原则的制约;(2) 成年人学习者无法习得与母语不同的第二语言的参数值Clahsen , Muysken也接受了这个观点, 但他们认为学习者不会只停留在母语的参数值上, 因为他们通过一般学习策略来继续第二语言学习 普遍语法不可及说 不可及说认为普遍语法不决定第二语言习得，因为成年人学习第二语言和小孩子习得第一语言有着本质的不同。

在他们看来，第一语言习得者使用的是语言习得机制，而第二语言学习者使用的是一般性学习策略 Clahsen 和 Muysken 分析了母语习得者如何通过一系列符合普遍语法的步骤确定管辖德语词序的限制条件： 成人学习者不遵照这些步骤,都采用语法规则无法描写的词序， 这些词序模式带有违反规则的句法移动等所以他们认为只有母语习得者利用普遍语法，成人第二语言习得者依靠信息处理原则和问题解决策略 持这一观点的研究者认为第二语言是通过人脑的其他官能所习得的, 而不是通过语言官能——U G 来习得的赞成这一观点通常有两点主张: 一是成年人的第二语言习得与第一语言的习得是大为不同的; 二是之所以会产生这种差异是因为第一语言学习者使用了他们的语言官能, 而成年人第二语言学习者则求助于一般学习策略他们通过该项研究发现德语第一语言学习者和第二语言学习者的习得顺序不同第一语言学习者一开始就使用SOV 句式, 随后才学会SVO 句式; 而第二语言学习者是在开始时使用SVO 句式, 然后再学会 SOV 句式Clahsen , Muysken 的结论是, U G 在第二语言学习中不起作用, 他们认为第一语言习得需要语言学的理论来解释, 而第二语言习得则需要认知理论来予以解释。

结束语 这四种假说虽然各有一番道理，但每一条都可能被一个例外轻易地证伪，它们反映的是第二语言习得中四种不同的习得现象而不是全部的习得事实，因为尚未发展完善的普遍语法理论直接制约了第二语言习得中普遍语法可及性研究，研究方法的局限也影响了论证和分析结果如果普遍语法确实对第二语言习得起作用，那么随着普遍语法研究的深入，第二语言习得能力形成的机制就会被逐渐揭示出来  62 。