大学英语精读课中的教师话语分析
|
摘要
近年来,当代教学论一致认为英语教学的实质是交际,但是目前大学生交际能力的缺乏已成为普遍现象。如何培养学生的交际能力受到越来越多教师与学者的重视。在中国,英语课堂是学生获得和运用知识的主要场所。大学英语精读课更是在第二语言习得中占有重要作用,同时也成为大家批评与争论的焦点。为了提高学生的交际能力,众多的教师与学者不停的探索新的教学方式改革精读课英语教学,其中交际法是目前最受欢迎的教学模式。但是他们忽略了另外一个重要的方面,即教师话语。
所谓教师话语就是指教师在第二语言课堂上组织教学和传授知识的语言。作为教师教授语言的重要工具,它在组织英语教学和语言习得中起着重要的作用。教师话语既是教师执行教学计划的工具,又是学生语言输入的重要来源,更主要的是在学习和使用语言这一阶段,学生可以通过教师话语来感受课堂上的语言交际。因此其数量和质量会影响甚至决定课堂教学的成功与否。正确使用教师话语会有助于提高有效的课堂交际和学习者的交际能力。而教师话语分析业已成为外语教学研究关注的中心。教师话语的研究始于以辛克莱(Sinclair)为首的伯明翰学派,他们从1970年开始系统的研究课堂上的语言交流,对课堂上教师与学生的对话进行深入、细微的分析,并提出了IRF模式。在国外不少语言学者对教师话语进行潜心研究,如Sinclair&Coulthard(1975);Long(1976);Allwright(1984)。Hakansson指出过多的教师话语会阻碍第二语言学习。但是在中国关于教师话语分析还是相对滞后,屈指可数。教师如何使用教师话语以及教师话语如何有助于提高有效的课堂交际和学生的交际能力成为即待解决的问题。
根据Krashen和Swain的理论,可理解性输入和可理解性输出是促成语言习得的主要因素。Krashen认为学生只有接受了大量的可理解性输入后语言习得才能发生。所谓的可理解性输入指的是包含已知的语言成分,还包含略高于已知语言水平的成分,并且能够被学生理解的输入。因此可理解性输入既要包含新的语言成分,而且不能太难,可以使学生理解。Swain则认为可理解性输入固然是促成语言习得的重要条件,但不是充分条件。语言习得的发生还得有赖于学生创造出足够的可理解性输出,输出则能迫使学习者懂得如何使用语言。但是无论是可理解性输入还是可理解性输出,他们都只有在交互中才对习得产生作用。在交互中如果双方遇到了交际障碍,他们可以就交际障碍进行意义协商,从而提高了输入和输出的可理解性以及交际的有效性。而构建主义认为,学习是使学习者对于知识主动建构的过程,而不是简单的由教师向学生传授信息的过程。教师不同于传统角色的教师,他不仅仅是信息的传递者,还要努力实现中介者的作用,帮助学生建构知识提高他们的交际能力。社会建构主义强调教师,学习者,任务和环境之间的互动作用,并进一步指出语言的学习活动就是人与人之间的交际活动。因此课堂上教师应努力创建一种有效的交际模式,以有助于实现真正意义的课堂交互以便有利于培养学习者的语言交际能力和提高学习者的内在动机。在学习过程中,教师是控制者,指挥者,管理者,促进者和信息提供者,创造能激发学习者内在动机的有效交互的学习环境,促进语言学习。
本文分别从吉林大学、长春师范大学和长春金融高等专科学校各抽取两位精读课老师,共六节课,每堂课45分钟的课堂录音,并把这些录音转换成文字语料分析了英语精读课教师话语的现状。同时还结合调查问卷,对来自于三所学校的150名学校的学生对教师话语各方面的态度进行了调查。为了收集到准确的如实地数据,作者在录音的同时,也亲自参加了每一堂课并认真做了笔记。根据Moskowtize的课堂交互分析记载表,详细记录了这六节课教师与学生活动的全部过程。调查发现:
(1)在英语精读课堂上,IRF已经不是唯一的教师话语模式。还有IIRF、I(SR)(SC)F、IR_1F_1R_2F_2…R_nF_n和IRI_1R_1I_2R_2I_nR_nF。其中与IRF相比,后两者更能促使课堂有效交际和学习者交际能力的提高。但是由于受到中国传统英语教学和教师角色的影响,IRF仍然在精读课上占有主导地位。
(2)这六名教师大多都采用了交际法教学,意识到了增加学生话语量的重要性,但是从整体上看,虽然学生的话语量有了明显增加,但是还是少于教师话语。而且在课堂上,教师还是利用大量的时间进行读写、单词和语法的训练。
(3)从教师话语的内容来看,大多数老师讲解的时间能占有50%以上,相应的教师提问和教师反馈的话语量较少。调查问卷也显示80%的学生认为他们教师讲解的时间超过了十五分钟,甚至二十分钟。而讲解作为一种教师独白不利于课堂的有效交际活动和学生交际能力的提高。
(4)展示性问题多于参考性问题。其中只有一位年轻老师的参考性问题多于展示性问题。同时笔者也观察到当教师提问参考性问题时,学生会主动思维并积极回答,课堂气氛也变得活跃。
(5)学生问题等候时间不足于一分钟,教师控制话语权和话轮权。
(6)目前中国的大学英语课堂教师已经注意到了师生互动对学生第二语言学习的重要性,认识到了采用三种协商手段(devices ofnegotiation),即澄清请求(clarification requests)、理解核实(comprehension checks)和确认核查(confirmation checks)。虽然澄清请求最有利于学生的口语输出,但是学生的交际压力也会随之增大。确认核实能使师生的交流继续下去,也使学生有了更多进行意义协商的机会。虽然这两种协商更有利于培养学生交际能力,但它们在协商中占的比例却比较少。但由于为了完成教学任务,教师往往更喜欢采用理解核实。
(7)就纠正反馈而言,由于面子原则,教师采用的大多是积极,简单的赞扬,而很少纠正学生的错误。但大多数学生更喜欢教师能提供有效的评论,并对纠错采取积极态度。教师提供的带有附加输入的反馈(feedback with extra input)和引发进一步输出的反馈(feedback asinitiation)比简单性反馈(simple feedback)更能激发学生更多的二语输出。在不损伤学生面子的前提下,引导学生自我修正错误。
同时,该研究为改善大学英语精读课的教师话语提供了几点建议:
(1)提高教师的英语水平。教师是否掌握好英语直接关系到学生交际能力的培养和课堂有效交际的效果。因此作为教师应该不断的更新知识,丰富自我。
(2)转变教师的角色,从教师课堂的控制者转变为指导者和组织者。使学生参与到课堂教学活动中来,鼓励学生自我思考,让学生有更多的时间将其所学运用到课堂交际。
(3)英语课堂中的活动主要为教学性活动,但又不可避免地具有交际性质。课堂本身也是一个交际场所,可以说交际是课堂的基本活动,教师话语在这一交际中作用重大。Thornbury曾经指出,教师话语中有些方面具有交际性的:如使用参考性问题,由于教师对答案是未知的,因此具备了交际性的目的;与学习者进行意义协商;教师对学习者的回答所作的反馈侧重于内容而非形式等。相反如果教师话语完全或过多的使用展示问题,简单空洞的赞扬,重复学习者的话语,注重课堂讲解,这些非交际性特点的教师话语将不利于课堂交际和学生交际能力的提升。因此我们要扩大教师话语的交际性,把非交际性的教师话语转变成交际性。课堂交际是以学生和老师的交际为特点的,增加问题和反馈的比重,尤其是参考性问题和有效反馈,减少课堂讲解,从而能提高学生话语输出量。同时增加学生的问题等候时间和话轮次数,培养学生自我修正错误和开展话轮技巧的能力。
(4)改变传统的观念,教学的目的是为了交际。教师应该尽可能的为学生建构真实的语言交际环境,提供更多的机会输出语言。同时这也并不仅仅是教师的责任,作为学生也应该克服其性格特点,积极主动的参与到课堂活动中去,除去Silence。
本次研究存在着一些不足,比如调查的对象仅仅是三所高校的六位老师45分钟英语精读课,尽管这三所高校是吉林省比较有代表性的学校,所以调查范围小,时间短。但是本研究在一定程度上揭示了教师话语的一些问题。总之,教师应该改变其角色,扩大教师话语中的交际因素,构建一个有效的教学交际环境,这样更加有力于改善目前学生交际能力匮乏的现象。
Presently, it is a common phenomenon that students are lack of communicative competence. Although most of graduates have studied for at least 6 or 10 years, they can not use the English in an appropriate way. In China, the English classroom is an important environment for the students to perceive and acquire language knowledge. Among all the courses, the intensive reading course has been subjected to much comment, debate, and criticism from some linguistic theories. It takes up most of time and plays an important role in SLA classroom in every university. So in the process of language learning, the development of the learners' communicative competence in the intensive reading class attracts more and more attention from the teachers and educators, who are exploring more and more advanced teaching methods to reform English Teaching Education such as communicative teaching. But an intensive reading class mainly consists of "Teacher Talk".
"Teacher Talk" is the most essential tool with which the teachers teach and the main resource from which students learn in the intensive reading course. Teacher Talk refers to the speech that a teacher uses to speak to student when the teacher undertakes the task in foreign language teaching. Students can acquire language knowledge directly from teacher talk and the most important issue lies in that through teacher talk the students can perceive communication in the very period of learning and using language. So teacher talk enables the teachers to communicate with the students and improves the effective interaction between teachers and students in ESL classroom. And the amount of teacher talk and the quality of teacher talk are closely related to the success of language teaching and learning. But the studies on TT in college level are still scare and unsystematic in China.
Krashen believed that teacher talk should be comprehensible input. Swain thought that in addition to input there must also be "comprehensible output", because this is in learners' attempts to construct messages that encode their own communicative intentions in speech which they are in a position to figure out how the language is structured. Long advocated that both of learners' input and output are realized during the interaction between students and teachers. Constructivist considered that it was the students who constructed language knowledge by the help of teachers, and that the process of constructing knowledge could arise from social conversational interaction. In this thesis, based on these theories, the author analyzes the communicative and non-communicative factors of teacher talk according to the data of six teachers' talk from Jilin University, Changchun Normal University and Changchun Financial College through recording, transcription and questionnaire. On the basis of the above experiment and opinion, we should enlarge the communicative factors of teacher talk and change the role of teacher in order to improve the effective interaction and learners' communicative competence.
所谓教师话语就是指教师在第二语言课堂上组织教学和传授知识的语言。作为教师教授语言的重要工具,它在组织英语教学和语言习得中起着重要的作用。教师话语既是教师执行教学计划的工具,又是学生语言输入的重要来源,更主要的是在学习和使用语言这一阶段,学生可以通过教师话语来感受课堂上的语言交际。因此其数量和质量会影响甚至决定课堂教学的成功与否。正确使用教师话语会有助于提高有效的课堂交际和学习者的交际能力。而教师话语分析业已成为外语教学研究关注的中心。教师话语的研究始于以辛克莱(Sinclair)为首的伯明翰学派,他们从1970年开始系统的研究课堂上的语言交流,对课堂上教师与学生的对话进行深入、细微的分析,并提出了IRF模式。在国外不少语言学者对教师话语进行潜心研究,如Sinclair&Coulthard(1975);Long(1976);Allwright(1984)。Hakansson指出过多的教师话语会阻碍第二语言学习。但是在中国关于教师话语分析还是相对滞后,屈指可数。教师如何使用教师话语以及教师话语如何有助于提高有效的课堂交际和学生的交际能力成为即待解决的问题。
根据Krashen和Swain的理论,可理解性输入和可理解性输出是促成语言习得的主要因素。Krashen认为学生只有接受了大量的可理解性输入后语言习得才能发生。所谓的可理解性输入指的是包含已知的语言成分,还包含略高于已知语言水平的成分,并且能够被学生理解的输入。因此可理解性输入既要包含新的语言成分,而且不能太难,可以使学生理解。Swain则认为可理解性输入固然是促成语言习得的重要条件,但不是充分条件。语言习得的发生还得有赖于学生创造出足够的可理解性输出,输出则能迫使学习者懂得如何使用语言。但是无论是可理解性输入还是可理解性输出,他们都只有在交互中才对习得产生作用。在交互中如果双方遇到了交际障碍,他们可以就交际障碍进行意义协商,从而提高了输入和输出的可理解性以及交际的有效性。而构建主义认为,学习是使学习者对于知识主动建构的过程,而不是简单的由教师向学生传授信息的过程。教师不同于传统角色的教师,他不仅仅是信息的传递者,还要努力实现中介者的作用,帮助学生建构知识提高他们的交际能力。社会建构主义强调教师,学习者,任务和环境之间的互动作用,并进一步指出语言的学习活动就是人与人之间的交际活动。因此课堂上教师应努力创建一种有效的交际模式,以有助于实现真正意义的课堂交互以便有利于培养学习者的语言交际能力和提高学习者的内在动机。在学习过程中,教师是控制者,指挥者,管理者,促进者和信息提供者,创造能激发学习者内在动机的有效交互的学习环境,促进语言学习。
本文分别从吉林大学、长春师范大学和长春金融高等专科学校各抽取两位精读课老师,共六节课,每堂课45分钟的课堂录音,并把这些录音转换成文字语料分析了英语精读课教师话语的现状。同时还结合调查问卷,对来自于三所学校的150名学校的学生对教师话语各方面的态度进行了调查。为了收集到准确的如实地数据,作者在录音的同时,也亲自参加了每一堂课并认真做了笔记。根据Moskowtize的课堂交互分析记载表,详细记录了这六节课教师与学生活动的全部过程。调查发现:
(1)在英语精读课堂上,IRF已经不是唯一的教师话语模式。还有IIRF、I(SR)(SC)F、IR_1F_1R_2F_2…R_nF_n和IRI_1R_1I_2R_2I_nR_nF。其中与IRF相比,后两者更能促使课堂有效交际和学习者交际能力的提高。但是由于受到中国传统英语教学和教师角色的影响,IRF仍然在精读课上占有主导地位。
(2)这六名教师大多都采用了交际法教学,意识到了增加学生话语量的重要性,但是从整体上看,虽然学生的话语量有了明显增加,但是还是少于教师话语。而且在课堂上,教师还是利用大量的时间进行读写、单词和语法的训练。
(3)从教师话语的内容来看,大多数老师讲解的时间能占有50%以上,相应的教师提问和教师反馈的话语量较少。调查问卷也显示80%的学生认为他们教师讲解的时间超过了十五分钟,甚至二十分钟。而讲解作为一种教师独白不利于课堂的有效交际活动和学生交际能力的提高。
(4)展示性问题多于参考性问题。其中只有一位年轻老师的参考性问题多于展示性问题。同时笔者也观察到当教师提问参考性问题时,学生会主动思维并积极回答,课堂气氛也变得活跃。
(5)学生问题等候时间不足于一分钟,教师控制话语权和话轮权。
(6)目前中国的大学英语课堂教师已经注意到了师生互动对学生第二语言学习的重要性,认识到了采用三种协商手段(devices ofnegotiation),即澄清请求(clarification requests)、理解核实(comprehension checks)和确认核查(confirmation checks)。虽然澄清请求最有利于学生的口语输出,但是学生的交际压力也会随之增大。确认核实能使师生的交流继续下去,也使学生有了更多进行意义协商的机会。虽然这两种协商更有利于培养学生交际能力,但它们在协商中占的比例却比较少。但由于为了完成教学任务,教师往往更喜欢采用理解核实。
(7)就纠正反馈而言,由于面子原则,教师采用的大多是积极,简单的赞扬,而很少纠正学生的错误。但大多数学生更喜欢教师能提供有效的评论,并对纠错采取积极态度。教师提供的带有附加输入的反馈(feedback with extra input)和引发进一步输出的反馈(feedback asinitiation)比简单性反馈(simple feedback)更能激发学生更多的二语输出。在不损伤学生面子的前提下,引导学生自我修正错误。
同时,该研究为改善大学英语精读课的教师话语提供了几点建议:
(1)提高教师的英语水平。教师是否掌握好英语直接关系到学生交际能力的培养和课堂有效交际的效果。因此作为教师应该不断的更新知识,丰富自我。
(2)转变教师的角色,从教师课堂的控制者转变为指导者和组织者。使学生参与到课堂教学活动中来,鼓励学生自我思考,让学生有更多的时间将其所学运用到课堂交际。
(3)英语课堂中的活动主要为教学性活动,但又不可避免地具有交际性质。课堂本身也是一个交际场所,可以说交际是课堂的基本活动,教师话语在这一交际中作用重大。Thornbury曾经指出,教师话语中有些方面具有交际性的:如使用参考性问题,由于教师对答案是未知的,因此具备了交际性的目的;与学习者进行意义协商;教师对学习者的回答所作的反馈侧重于内容而非形式等。相反如果教师话语完全或过多的使用展示问题,简单空洞的赞扬,重复学习者的话语,注重课堂讲解,这些非交际性特点的教师话语将不利于课堂交际和学生交际能力的提升。因此我们要扩大教师话语的交际性,把非交际性的教师话语转变成交际性。课堂交际是以学生和老师的交际为特点的,增加问题和反馈的比重,尤其是参考性问题和有效反馈,减少课堂讲解,从而能提高学生话语输出量。同时增加学生的问题等候时间和话轮次数,培养学生自我修正错误和开展话轮技巧的能力。
(4)改变传统的观念,教学的目的是为了交际。教师应该尽可能的为学生建构真实的语言交际环境,提供更多的机会输出语言。同时这也并不仅仅是教师的责任,作为学生也应该克服其性格特点,积极主动的参与到课堂活动中去,除去Silence。
本次研究存在着一些不足,比如调查的对象仅仅是三所高校的六位老师45分钟英语精读课,尽管这三所高校是吉林省比较有代表性的学校,所以调查范围小,时间短。但是本研究在一定程度上揭示了教师话语的一些问题。总之,教师应该改变其角色,扩大教师话语中的交际因素,构建一个有效的教学交际环境,这样更加有力于改善目前学生交际能力匮乏的现象。
Presently, it is a common phenomenon that students are lack of communicative competence. Although most of graduates have studied for at least 6 or 10 years, they can not use the English in an appropriate way. In China, the English classroom is an important environment for the students to perceive and acquire language knowledge. Among all the courses, the intensive reading course has been subjected to much comment, debate, and criticism from some linguistic theories. It takes up most of time and plays an important role in SLA classroom in every university. So in the process of language learning, the development of the learners' communicative competence in the intensive reading class attracts more and more attention from the teachers and educators, who are exploring more and more advanced teaching methods to reform English Teaching Education such as communicative teaching. But an intensive reading class mainly consists of "Teacher Talk".
"Teacher Talk" is the most essential tool with which the teachers teach and the main resource from which students learn in the intensive reading course. Teacher Talk refers to the speech that a teacher uses to speak to student when the teacher undertakes the task in foreign language teaching. Students can acquire language knowledge directly from teacher talk and the most important issue lies in that through teacher talk the students can perceive communication in the very period of learning and using language. So teacher talk enables the teachers to communicate with the students and improves the effective interaction between teachers and students in ESL classroom. And the amount of teacher talk and the quality of teacher talk are closely related to the success of language teaching and learning. But the studies on TT in college level are still scare and unsystematic in China.
Krashen believed that teacher talk should be comprehensible input. Swain thought that in addition to input there must also be "comprehensible output", because this is in learners' attempts to construct messages that encode their own communicative intentions in speech which they are in a position to figure out how the language is structured. Long advocated that both of learners' input and output are realized during the interaction between students and teachers. Constructivist considered that it was the students who constructed language knowledge by the help of teachers, and that the process of constructing knowledge could arise from social conversational interaction. In this thesis, based on these theories, the author analyzes the communicative and non-communicative factors of teacher talk according to the data of six teachers' talk from Jilin University, Changchun Normal University and Changchun Financial College through recording, transcription and questionnaire. On the basis of the above experiment and opinion, we should enlarge the communicative factors of teacher talk and change the role of teacher in order to improve the effective interaction and learners' communicative competence.
引文
1. Allwright, R. Turns, Topics and Tasks: Patterns of Participation in Language Learning and Teaching. In Larsen-Freeman, Discourse Analysis in Second Language Research. Rowley: Newbury House. 1980
2. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991.
3. Allwright, D. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Birmingham: English Language Research, university of Birmingham.
4. Barnes.D. Language in the Secondary Classroom [C] .in Barnes et al. 1969:9-17
5. Brock C. The Effects of Referential Question on ESL Classroom Discourse.TESOL Quarterly, 1986, 20:1.
6. Brophy J E. Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 1981, 51
7. Bellack, et al. The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers' College Press. 1966
8. Braizil, D. Classroom and Spoken Discourse. Center for English Language Studies, Birmingham University. 1995
9. Chaudron, C.Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10. Coulthard, R. M. &Montgomery, M.1981.Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: AKP
11. Ellis, R. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
12. Ellis, R, The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
13. Ellis, R. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford UK&Cambridge USA Blackwell 1990
14. Eysenck, H. J. The Structure of Human Personality. London: Routledge, Kegan, and Paul. 1970.
15. Eysenck, S. & Chan, J. A Comparative Study of Personality in Adults and Children: Hong Kong vs. England. Personality and Individual Differences. 1982. 3: 153-160.
16. Fairclough, N. A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 1970
17. Gass, S. M. Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1997.
18. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal. 1998. 82:299-307.
19. Hanley, S. On Constructivism [z]. Collected by Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation, NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DUE 9255745. 1994
20. Hakansson, G. Quantitative Studies of Teacher Talk. In Kasper(ed) Learning Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 1986
21. Jacobsen, D.A. Eggen, Paul. and Kauchak, Don. Methods for Teaching: Promoting Student Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1999. 5th. 153-154.
22. Jeremy Harmer. How to Teach English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000
23. Krashen. S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication [M]Prentice Hall, 1989 Kramsch, C. Classroom Interaction and Discourse Options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1985 11.
24.Long.M.H. Native Speakers/non-native Speaker Conversation and Negotiation of Comprehensible Input [J] Applied Linguistics, Vol4, 1983:126-141
25. Long M H & Sato C J. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and Functions of Teachers Questions [A]. H W Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1983: 268-285.
26. Lynch T. Question Roles in the Classroom [J].ELT, 1991,41/2.
27. McCatrhy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991
28. Nunan D. Communicative Language Teaching: Making It Work. ELT, 1987.
29. Nunan D. The Questions Teachers Ask [J].JALT, 1990, 12:2.14.
30. Nunan D. Language Teaching Methodology [M]. New York: Prentice Hall, 1991.
31. Richard J & Lockhart C. Cambridge University Press Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
32. Richards, J. C. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching& Applied Linguistics [Z]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1992.
33. Rowe M B. Wait-time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up. Journal of Teacher Education, 1986.
34. Seliger & M H Long. Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition[C]. Newbury House, 1983.
35. Sinclair, J.andBrazil, D. Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford University. 1982
36. Sinclair, J. McH. &Couthard, R.M.1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.Swain, M. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in Its Development. In S. M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.). 1985: 235-253.
38. Swain, M. The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough. The Canada Modern Language Review. 1993. 50 (1): 158-164.
39. Swain, M. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G.Cook & B. Seiddlhofer (Eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.1995. 125-144.
40. Swain, M. Focus on Form through Conscious rReflection. In Doughty, C, &Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998: 64-81.
41. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. Modern Language Journal. 1998. 82: 320-337.
42. Thompson G Training Teachers to Ask Questions. ELT, 1997, 51/2.
43. Thombury, S. (1996). Teachers Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal 50(4):279-287
44. Tsui B M A. Analyzing Input and Interaction in Second Language Classroom. RELC, 1993,16:1.
45. White J & Lightbown P M. Asking and Answering in ESL Classes. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1984,40.
46. White, L. Against Comprehensible Input: The Input Hypothesis and The Development of L2 Competence. Applied Linguistics. 1987. 8: 95-110.
47. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. Psychology for Language Teachers. A Social Constructivist Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
48. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976. 17: 89-100.
49. Wu Kam-yin. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC, 1993,24, No.4.
50. Van Lier, L. Analyzing Interaction in Second Language Clsasrooms ELT 1984 Journal3813:160-169
51. Van Lier, L. The Classroom and The Language Learning. London: Longman.1988:243.
52. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics. 1985. 6: 71-90.
53.Vygotsky,L.S.Mind in society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1978.
54.刘润清,中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究 北京 外语教学与研究出版社 2003.
55.刘润清 论大学英语教学 北京 外语教学与研究出版社 1999
56.吴霞辉.Uneven allocation of teachers attention to student中国英语教学,2003,(4).
57.周星,周韵.大学英语课堂教师话语调查分析[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(1):22.
58.赵晓红.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J].外语界,1998,(2):15-17.
59.宋德云,潘龙明.提高英语教师话语[J].中国英语教学,2000,(12):30.
60.郑树棠.关于大学英语教学法的研究[J].外语界,1997,3.
61.高丽娟 教师话语在课堂互动中的人际功能 山东外语教学 2005
62.课堂话语微观分析:理论,方法与实践 外语研究 2006 9.53
63.刘家荣,蒋宇红.英语口语课堂话语的调查与分析一个案研究[J].外语教学与研究(4).2004
64.吴宗杰.外语课堂话轮类型析[J].外语教学与研究 1994(2).
65.贾爱武.语言课堂话语模式的分析与改进[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).1999
66.李战子.从会话分析看英语口语课堂活动[J].外语界(2).1996
67.杨雪燕.西方有关外语课堂过程研究综述[J].外语教学,2003(1):57
2. Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991.
3. Allwright, D. The Communicative Value of Intonation in English. Birmingham: English Language Research, university of Birmingham.
4. Barnes.D. Language in the Secondary Classroom [C] .in Barnes et al. 1969:9-17
5. Brock C. The Effects of Referential Question on ESL Classroom Discourse.TESOL Quarterly, 1986, 20:1.
6. Brophy J E. Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 1981, 51
7. Bellack, et al. The Language of the Classroom. New York: Teachers' College Press. 1966
8. Braizil, D. Classroom and Spoken Discourse. Center for English Language Studies, Birmingham University. 1995
9. Chaudron, C.Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
10. Coulthard, R. M. &Montgomery, M.1981.Studies in Discourse Analysis. London: AKP
11. Ellis, R. Classroom Second Language Development. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
12. Ellis, R, The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press
13. Ellis, R. Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Oxford UK&Cambridge USA Blackwell 1990
14. Eysenck, H. J. The Structure of Human Personality. London: Routledge, Kegan, and Paul. 1970.
15. Eysenck, S. & Chan, J. A Comparative Study of Personality in Adults and Children: Hong Kong vs. England. Personality and Individual Differences. 1982. 3: 153-160.
16. Fairclough, N. A. Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley. 1970
17. Gass, S. M. Input, Interaction and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 1997.
18. Gass, S. M., Mackey, A., & Pica, T. The Role of Input and Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Modern Language Journal. 1998. 82:299-307.
19. Hanley, S. On Constructivism [z]. Collected by Maryland Collaborative for Teacher Preparation, NSF Cooperative Agreement No. DUE 9255745. 1994
20. Hakansson, G. Quantitative Studies of Teacher Talk. In Kasper(ed) Learning Teaching and Communication in the Foreign Language Classroom. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. 1986
21. Jacobsen, D.A. Eggen, Paul. and Kauchak, Don. Methods for Teaching: Promoting Student Learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1999. 5th. 153-154.
22. Jeremy Harmer. How to Teach English. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000
23. Krashen. S. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication [M]Prentice Hall, 1989 Kramsch, C. Classroom Interaction and Discourse Options. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1985 11.
24.Long.M.H. Native Speakers/non-native Speaker Conversation and Negotiation of Comprehensible Input [J] Applied Linguistics, Vol4, 1983:126-141
25. Long M H & Sato C J. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and Functions of Teachers Questions [A]. H W Long (Eds.), Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 1983: 268-285.
26. Lynch T. Question Roles in the Classroom [J].ELT, 1991,41/2.
27. McCatrhy, M. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991
28. Nunan D. Communicative Language Teaching: Making It Work. ELT, 1987.
29. Nunan D. The Questions Teachers Ask [J].JALT, 1990, 12:2.14.
30. Nunan D. Language Teaching Methodology [M]. New York: Prentice Hall, 1991.
31. Richard J & Lockhart C. Cambridge University Press Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classrooms [M].Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
32. Richards, J. C. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching& Applied Linguistics [Z]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 1992.
33. Rowe M B. Wait-time: Slowing Down May Be A Way of Speeding Up. Journal of Teacher Education, 1986.
34. Seliger & M H Long. Classroom Oriented Research in Second Language Acquisition[C]. Newbury House, 1983.
35. Sinclair, J.andBrazil, D. Teacher Talk. Oxford: Oxford University. 1982
36. Sinclair, J. McH. &Couthard, R.M.1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: the English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.Swain, M. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in Its Development. In S. M. Gass & C.G. Madden (Eds.). 1985: 235-253.
38. Swain, M. The Output Hypothesis: Just Speaking and Writing Aren't Enough. The Canada Modern Language Review. 1993. 50 (1): 158-164.
39. Swain, M. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G.Cook & B. Seiddlhofer (Eds.). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Languages Education Press.1995. 125-144.
40. Swain, M. Focus on Form through Conscious rReflection. In Doughty, C, &Williams, J. (Eds.). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1998: 64-81.
41. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. Interaction and Second Language Learning: Two Adolescent French Immersion Students Working Together. Modern Language Journal. 1998. 82: 320-337.
42. Thompson G Training Teachers to Ask Questions. ELT, 1997, 51/2.
43. Thombury, S. (1996). Teachers Research Teacher Talk. ELT Journal 50(4):279-287
44. Tsui B M A. Analyzing Input and Interaction in Second Language Classroom. RELC, 1993,16:1.
45. White J & Lightbown P M. Asking and Answering in ESL Classes. Canadian Modern Language Review. 1984,40.
46. White, L. Against Comprehensible Input: The Input Hypothesis and The Development of L2 Competence. Applied Linguistics. 1987. 8: 95-110.
47. Williams, M., & Burden, R. L. Psychology for Language Teachers. A Social Constructivist Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. 2000.
48. Wood, D., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. The Role of Tutoring in Problem Solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 1976. 17: 89-100.
49. Wu Kam-yin. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC, 1993,24, No.4.
50. Van Lier, L. Analyzing Interaction in Second Language Clsasrooms ELT 1984 Journal3813:160-169
51. Van Lier, L. The Classroom and The Language Learning. London: Longman.1988:243.
52. Varonis, E., & Gass, S. M. Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics. 1985. 6: 71-90.
53.Vygotsky,L.S.Mind in society:The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1978.
54.刘润清,中国高校外语教学改革现状与发展策略研究 北京 外语教学与研究出版社 2003.
55.刘润清 论大学英语教学 北京 外语教学与研究出版社 1999
56.吴霞辉.Uneven allocation of teachers attention to student中国英语教学,2003,(4).
57.周星,周韵.大学英语课堂教师话语调查分析[J].外语教学与研究,2002,(1):22.
58.赵晓红.大学英语阅读课教师话语的调查与分析[J].外语界,1998,(2):15-17.
59.宋德云,潘龙明.提高英语教师话语[J].中国英语教学,2000,(12):30.
60.郑树棠.关于大学英语教学法的研究[J].外语界,1997,3.
61.高丽娟 教师话语在课堂互动中的人际功能 山东外语教学 2005
62.课堂话语微观分析:理论,方法与实践 外语研究 2006 9.53
63.刘家荣,蒋宇红.英语口语课堂话语的调查与分析一个案研究[J].外语教学与研究(4).2004
64.吴宗杰.外语课堂话轮类型析[J].外语教学与研究 1994(2).
65.贾爱武.语言课堂话语模式的分析与改进[J].解放军外国语学院学报(4).1999
66.李战子.从会话分析看英语口语课堂活动[J].外语界(2).1996
67.杨雪燕.西方有关外语课堂过程研究综述[J].外语教学,2003(1):57