中介语僵化现象的研究及其教学启示
|
摘要
中介语僵化现象的研究是二语习得研究的热点之一，国外这方面的相关研究方兴未艾，尤以“中介语”概念的提出者Selinker的研究最具代表性。国内对西方二语习得理论的引进及其对我国的外语教学意义的探讨已有二十多年的历史，不过，对中介语僵化现象的关注也只是近几年的事。由于二语习得理论本身也仍处在发展阶段，对僵化现象的研究无论在国内还是在国外都还欠缺，值得进一步研究。
本文在较全面综合分析相关研究成果的基础上，对中国部分大学非英语专业学生的中介语僵化现象进行了尝试性分析，并进一步探讨了如何在大学英语教学中帮助学生克服僵化，提高教学效果，最终实现培养学生交际能力的教学目标。
文章第一部分介绍了“僵化”这一概念的含义。“僵化”是指第二语言学习者的语言能力没有达到母语语言能力的现象。其范畴因不同的研究者而不同。根据Selinker(1972)最初的观点，“僵化”是存在于中介语中的一种心理机制，僵化无法解除。现在的“僵化”含义偏窄，一般指中介语中难以改变的非目的语形式。僵化可分为个体和群体、永久与暂时等类型。
文章第二部分分别从生物、社会文化、语言、交际、认知、心理、语言学习等角度分析了僵化产生的原因。僵化现象“生物论”的主要代表人物有Lenneberg和Lamendella。Lenneberg认为语言学习有一个“关键期”，届时大脑两侧功能的分工已完成。在此之后语言学习就会很困难。Lamendella则认为二语学习至少存在一个“敏感期”。“生物论”突出了年龄在外语学习中的重要性，解释了为什么成年人很难获得地道的发音。Shumann的“文化迁移模式”则从社会文化的角度解释僵化的原因。该模式认为，语言习得是由学习者与目的语文化之间的社会及心理距离所决定。距离越大，习得的成功性越小，越会导致僵化。“文化迁移模式”多解释二语环境下的语言习得。Gardner的“社会教育模式”主要解释社会文化因素对外语学习的影响。“语言迁移”被Selinker
爵”士学“论文
义乏岁M筋住R’ST既SIS
看成是引起“僵化”的主要原因之一。通常母语与目的语之间的差异会导致“负
迁移”，形成中介语错误。“迁移”错误在学习者错误中占有一定的比例。根据
K淦韶hen的观点，导致“僵化”最明显的原因是语言学习者没有获得足量的语
言输入。他认为这是许多外语学习者出现语言僵化的原因。此外，不当的(过
易或过难)语言输入或错误的语言输入也会导致僵化。Visil和Oller(1976)
从交际反馈的角度解释僵化的原因。根据他们的“反馈模式”，在交流的过程
中，说话者与听话者之间有两种信息的交流，一种是情感信息，另一种是认知
信息。防止僵化的最佳反馈是肯定的情感反馈和否定的认知反馈;相反，肯定
的情感反馈和肯定的认知反馈会导致僵化。否定的情感反馈也会导致僵化。从
认知学的角度来看，大脑有限的信息处理能力常常导致局部语言特征的僵化。
僵化还可从心理学的角度加以解释。语言学习是一种技能的学习，因此包含一
个心理“高原期”。当外语学习者达到“高原期”时，他们的外语能力不再向
前发展，这一状态持续下去，会产生僵化。此外，一些学者从学习策略、交际
策略、语言的标记性、参数等方面解释僵化的原因。
文章的第三部分对部分大学非英语专业学生作文中的语言错误进行了分
析。作者试图通过横向分析和纵向比较两组英语学习者一大学新生和大二学生
作文中共同的错误类型，揭示大学非英语专业学生英语中的僵化特征。研究发
现，在有些语言错误上存在较明显的群体僵化倾向，如词类错误，固定表达错
误，动词形式错误，单词拼写错误等。同时发现通过大学阶段的学习，学生的
总体语言能力得到了提高。作者尝试性地分析了一些呈僵化倾向的错误产生的
原因并指出了大学英语教学中存在的问题。
文章的第四部分从四个方面论述了僵化研究对大学英语教学的启示。一是
教学目标的确立。教学目标过高，会挫伤教师、学生的学习积极性。对大多数
学习者而言，母语水平(尤其是在语音方面)是一个不实际的目标。大学英语
的教学目标应如大纲所规定的，是培养学生一定的交际能力。围绕这一目标，
教师在教学中应处理好语言能力和交际能力、准确性与流利性之间的关系。二
是语法教学。语法教学应在大学英语教学中得到重视。语法教学应注意培养学
生的语法意识，遵循从核心语法到边缘语法的教学顺序，并注意把语法教学溶
入交际活动中。三是课堂语言输入。为保证课堂语言输入的质量和数量，选择
馨
硕士学位论文
MASTER’51’IIESIS
适当的教材很重要，教师应重视自己的课堂话语的质量及对多媒体教学的运
用。四是纠错。纠错可以防止错误的僵化。但教师在纠错时应考虑课堂氛围、
学习者的性格、活动类型、错误类型等因素，把握好纠错时机，不同的错误区
别对待。对一些不能纠正的错误，则应采取“迂回”法。
文章的第五部分为结论部分。作者指出了对僵化现象研究的理论意义和实
践意义。对中介语僵化的研究有助于二语习得理论的进一步完善，加深对二语
习得规律的了解。作?
Interlanguage fossilization is a popular issue of second language acquisition (SLA) research, and has not been sufficiently explored on both theoretical and empirical levels in the literature. This thesis details the characteristics and causes of fossilization. On the basis of the insightful understanding of interlanguage fossilization, this paper makes an attempt at analyzing the features of fossilization tendency of Chinese college non-English majors and based on this, discusses some pedagogical implications for the prevention and treatment for this phenomenon.
"Fossilization" refers to the phenomenon in SLA that second language learners fail to reach target language competence. Usually it refers to specific second language errors becoming firmly entrenched in interlanguage.
The causes of fossilization have been analyzed on biological, sociocultural, linguistic, communicative, cognitive and psychological domains. On biological domain, Lenneberg(1967) claims that there is a critical period, in which lateralization of the brain is completed. After the period, complete mastery of a language is impossible. Lamendella (1977) maintains that at least there is a sensitive period, during which second language acquisition is most efficient. According to Schumann's Acculturation Model, the more a L2 learner is adapted to the target culture, the shorter the social and psychological distance, the more successful he will be in SLA. From linguistic point of view, L1 interference is identified by Selinker et al as an important factor causing fossilization. Krashen (1985) states that insufficient input is the most obvious cause of fossilization, esp. for foreign language students. Inadequate quality or deviant input can also result in fossilization. Vigil & Oiler's Feedback Model analyzes fossilization from communicative point of view. According to this model, negative affective feedback usually causes fossilization, and so does positive affective feedback working
together with positive cognitive feedback. The ideal feedback is positive affective feedback working together with negative cognitive feedback. From psychological point of view, language learning is a skill learning and involves a "plateau", i.e., a stabilization period. If the "plateau" is not overcome, fossilization follows. Besides the above main theoretical explanations, the causes of fossilization are also attributed to learning strategies, the brain's cognitive limitations, parameters, markedness of L1 and L2, etc. With the deepening of SLA research, the research topics of fossilization are being enriched.
In Section III of the paper, the common grammatical errors of some high school graduates and college sophomores are studied and analyzed, with the purpose of revealing the tendency of fossilization of Chinese college non-English majors. It is shown that the errors in fixed expression, verb form, word class, diction, word spelling and Chinglish tend to fossilize.
In the fourth section, the implications of the study of fossilization for college English teaching have been explored. Four issues are discussed. One is the goal for college English teaching. A realistic goal for college English teaching is "considerable communicative competence", neither native-speaker competence nor only linguistic competence. This goal means in teaching fluency and accuracy should be given due attention. The second issue is grammar teaching. Grammar teaching is held to be able to destabilize interlanguage grammar and prevent fossilization (Ellisl995). In view of the fossilized errors in the learners' composition and the backwash effect of CET-4, the present author argues that in grammar teaching at college, core grammar rather than peripheral grammar should be stressed. Special emphasis should be given to those features that show high tendency of fossilization. Inductive grammar teaching and communicative grammar teaching are recommended to help raise learners' grammar awareness and integrate form and meaning. The third issue is quality of classroom input. To guarantee
本文在较全面综合分析相关研究成果的基础上，对中国部分大学非英语专业学生的中介语僵化现象进行了尝试性分析，并进一步探讨了如何在大学英语教学中帮助学生克服僵化，提高教学效果，最终实现培养学生交际能力的教学目标。
文章第一部分介绍了“僵化”这一概念的含义。“僵化”是指第二语言学习者的语言能力没有达到母语语言能力的现象。其范畴因不同的研究者而不同。根据Selinker(1972)最初的观点，“僵化”是存在于中介语中的一种心理机制，僵化无法解除。现在的“僵化”含义偏窄，一般指中介语中难以改变的非目的语形式。僵化可分为个体和群体、永久与暂时等类型。
文章第二部分分别从生物、社会文化、语言、交际、认知、心理、语言学习等角度分析了僵化产生的原因。僵化现象“生物论”的主要代表人物有Lenneberg和Lamendella。Lenneberg认为语言学习有一个“关键期”，届时大脑两侧功能的分工已完成。在此之后语言学习就会很困难。Lamendella则认为二语学习至少存在一个“敏感期”。“生物论”突出了年龄在外语学习中的重要性，解释了为什么成年人很难获得地道的发音。Shumann的“文化迁移模式”则从社会文化的角度解释僵化的原因。该模式认为，语言习得是由学习者与目的语文化之间的社会及心理距离所决定。距离越大，习得的成功性越小，越会导致僵化。“文化迁移模式”多解释二语环境下的语言习得。Gardner的“社会教育模式”主要解释社会文化因素对外语学习的影响。“语言迁移”被Selinker
爵”士学“论文
义乏岁M筋住R’ST既SIS
看成是引起“僵化”的主要原因之一。通常母语与目的语之间的差异会导致“负
迁移”，形成中介语错误。“迁移”错误在学习者错误中占有一定的比例。根据
K淦韶hen的观点，导致“僵化”最明显的原因是语言学习者没有获得足量的语
言输入。他认为这是许多外语学习者出现语言僵化的原因。此外，不当的(过
易或过难)语言输入或错误的语言输入也会导致僵化。Visil和Oller(1976)
从交际反馈的角度解释僵化的原因。根据他们的“反馈模式”，在交流的过程
中，说话者与听话者之间有两种信息的交流，一种是情感信息，另一种是认知
信息。防止僵化的最佳反馈是肯定的情感反馈和否定的认知反馈;相反，肯定
的情感反馈和肯定的认知反馈会导致僵化。否定的情感反馈也会导致僵化。从
认知学的角度来看，大脑有限的信息处理能力常常导致局部语言特征的僵化。
僵化还可从心理学的角度加以解释。语言学习是一种技能的学习，因此包含一
个心理“高原期”。当外语学习者达到“高原期”时，他们的外语能力不再向
前发展，这一状态持续下去，会产生僵化。此外，一些学者从学习策略、交际
策略、语言的标记性、参数等方面解释僵化的原因。
文章的第三部分对部分大学非英语专业学生作文中的语言错误进行了分
析。作者试图通过横向分析和纵向比较两组英语学习者一大学新生和大二学生
作文中共同的错误类型，揭示大学非英语专业学生英语中的僵化特征。研究发
现，在有些语言错误上存在较明显的群体僵化倾向，如词类错误，固定表达错
误，动词形式错误，单词拼写错误等。同时发现通过大学阶段的学习，学生的
总体语言能力得到了提高。作者尝试性地分析了一些呈僵化倾向的错误产生的
原因并指出了大学英语教学中存在的问题。
文章的第四部分从四个方面论述了僵化研究对大学英语教学的启示。一是
教学目标的确立。教学目标过高，会挫伤教师、学生的学习积极性。对大多数
学习者而言，母语水平(尤其是在语音方面)是一个不实际的目标。大学英语
的教学目标应如大纲所规定的，是培养学生一定的交际能力。围绕这一目标，
教师在教学中应处理好语言能力和交际能力、准确性与流利性之间的关系。二
是语法教学。语法教学应在大学英语教学中得到重视。语法教学应注意培养学
生的语法意识，遵循从核心语法到边缘语法的教学顺序，并注意把语法教学溶
入交际活动中。三是课堂语言输入。为保证课堂语言输入的质量和数量，选择
馨
硕士学位论文
MASTER’51’IIESIS
适当的教材很重要，教师应重视自己的课堂话语的质量及对多媒体教学的运
用。四是纠错。纠错可以防止错误的僵化。但教师在纠错时应考虑课堂氛围、
学习者的性格、活动类型、错误类型等因素，把握好纠错时机，不同的错误区
别对待。对一些不能纠正的错误，则应采取“迂回”法。
文章的第五部分为结论部分。作者指出了对僵化现象研究的理论意义和实
践意义。对中介语僵化的研究有助于二语习得理论的进一步完善，加深对二语
习得规律的了解。作?
Interlanguage fossilization is a popular issue of second language acquisition (SLA) research, and has not been sufficiently explored on both theoretical and empirical levels in the literature. This thesis details the characteristics and causes of fossilization. On the basis of the insightful understanding of interlanguage fossilization, this paper makes an attempt at analyzing the features of fossilization tendency of Chinese college non-English majors and based on this, discusses some pedagogical implications for the prevention and treatment for this phenomenon.
"Fossilization" refers to the phenomenon in SLA that second language learners fail to reach target language competence. Usually it refers to specific second language errors becoming firmly entrenched in interlanguage.
The causes of fossilization have been analyzed on biological, sociocultural, linguistic, communicative, cognitive and psychological domains. On biological domain, Lenneberg(1967) claims that there is a critical period, in which lateralization of the brain is completed. After the period, complete mastery of a language is impossible. Lamendella (1977) maintains that at least there is a sensitive period, during which second language acquisition is most efficient. According to Schumann's Acculturation Model, the more a L2 learner is adapted to the target culture, the shorter the social and psychological distance, the more successful he will be in SLA. From linguistic point of view, L1 interference is identified by Selinker et al as an important factor causing fossilization. Krashen (1985) states that insufficient input is the most obvious cause of fossilization, esp. for foreign language students. Inadequate quality or deviant input can also result in fossilization. Vigil & Oiler's Feedback Model analyzes fossilization from communicative point of view. According to this model, negative affective feedback usually causes fossilization, and so does positive affective feedback working
together with positive cognitive feedback. The ideal feedback is positive affective feedback working together with negative cognitive feedback. From psychological point of view, language learning is a skill learning and involves a "plateau", i.e., a stabilization period. If the "plateau" is not overcome, fossilization follows. Besides the above main theoretical explanations, the causes of fossilization are also attributed to learning strategies, the brain's cognitive limitations, parameters, markedness of L1 and L2, etc. With the deepening of SLA research, the research topics of fossilization are being enriched.
In Section III of the paper, the common grammatical errors of some high school graduates and college sophomores are studied and analyzed, with the purpose of revealing the tendency of fossilization of Chinese college non-English majors. It is shown that the errors in fixed expression, verb form, word class, diction, word spelling and Chinglish tend to fossilize.
In the fourth section, the implications of the study of fossilization for college English teaching have been explored. Four issues are discussed. One is the goal for college English teaching. A realistic goal for college English teaching is "considerable communicative competence", neither native-speaker competence nor only linguistic competence. This goal means in teaching fluency and accuracy should be given due attention. The second issue is grammar teaching. Grammar teaching is held to be able to destabilize interlanguage grammar and prevent fossilization (Ellisl995). In view of the fossilized errors in the learners' composition and the backwash effect of CET-4, the present author argues that in grammar teaching at college, core grammar rather than peripheral grammar should be stressed. Special emphasis should be given to those features that show high tendency of fossilization. Inductive grammar teaching and communicative grammar teaching are recommended to help raise learners' grammar awareness and integrate form and meaning. The third issue is quality of classroom input. To guarantee
引文
1. Anderson,J. Is a Communicative Approach Practical for Teaching English in China? Pros and Cons [J]. System. 1993, (21): 471-480.
2. Brown,H.D.Teaching by Principles.An Interactive Approach to the Pedagogy[M]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.1994.
3. Celce-Murcia,M.(ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language(2~(nd)edition) [M]. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.1991.
4. College English Syllabus [Z].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press.1999.
5. Corder, S.P. The Significance of Learners'Errors [J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1967, (5).
6. Dulay, H.,M.Burt and S.Krashen.Language Two [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1982.
7. Elaine,T and GeorgeY. Focus on the Language Learner [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1989.
8. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1994.
9. Faerch, C.,Haastrup,K. and Phillipson,R. Learner Language and Language Leaning [M].Clevedon,Avon:Multilingual Matters.1984:333.
10. Harmer,J. The Practice of English Language Teaching [M].New York:Longman,1991.
11. Hedge,T.Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.2000.
12. James,C. Errors in Language Learning and Use—Exploring Error Analysis [M].London and New York: Longman.1998.
13. Krashen,S. Lateralization,Language Learning,and the Critical Period:SomeNew Evidence[J]. Language Learning.1973, (23): 63-74.
14. Krashen,S. Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford:Pergamon Press,1982.
15. Kreshen,S.The Input Hypothesis:lssues and Implications [M].New York:Longman,1985.
16. Lamendella,J.T.General Principles of Neurofunctional Organization.and Their Manifestations in Primary and Non-primary Language Acquisition [J].Language Learning,1977,(27):155-196.
17. Larsen-Freeman,D and Long, M.H.An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research [M]. London:Longman.1991.
18. Lenneberg,E. Biological Foundations of Language [M]. New York: Wiley and Sons,1967.
19. Littlewood, W. Foreign and Second Language Learning [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1984.
20. Mukkatesh,L.Persistence of Fossilization [J]. IRAL.1986,(24):187-203.
21 Major,J.Balancing Form and Function [J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1988, (26): 81-100.
22. Mattews, P.H. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics [Z].New York:Oxford University Press.1997.
23. Nattinger J.R. and J.S.Decarrico.Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching [M],New York: Oxford University Press,1992.
24. Nunan, D. Research Methods in Language Learning [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.1992.
25. Odlin,T. Language Transfer [M],Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.1989.
26. Omaggio,Alice C.Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency Oriented Inetructio.[M], Boston:Heinle & Heinle,1986.
27. Richards,J. Error Analysis [M]. London: Longman.1974.
28. Roseberry-Mckibbin,C. Multicutural Students With Special Language Needs[M], Oceanside,CA: Academic Communications Associates.1995.
29. Schumann,J. Second Language Acquisition Pidginization Hypothesis [J],
Language Learning,1976, (26).
30. Schumann,J. The Acculturation Model for Second Lananguage Acquisition[A]. In R. Gingras(ed.).Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching[C].Arington,VA: Center for Applied Linguistics,1978.
31. Seliger,H.Implications of A Multiple Critical Periods Hypothesis for Second Language Learning in Ritchie (ed.) [C].New York: Academic Press.1978.
32. Selinker, L.Interlanguage [J].IRAL,1972, (10).
33. Selinker, L.Rediscovering Interlanguage [M], London: Longman.1992.
34. Selinker, L and J. Lamendella.Fossilization in Interlanguage [A].In C.Blatchford and J.Schachter (eds.).EFL Policies,Program,Practices [C],Washington D.C:TESOL.1978.
35. Selinker, L. Fossilization:What We Think We Know [J/OL].1996.
36. Stern, H.H. (edited by Allen, P and B. Harley) Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1992.
37. Stevick,E.Teaching Language: A Way and Ways [M].Rowly,Mass:Newbury House.1980.
38. Swain, M. Communicative Competence:Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible output in Its Development,Input in Second Language Acquisition [M].Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House.1985.
39. Sims,W. R.Fossilization and Learning Strategies on Second Language Acquisition[Z],(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED339 195),1989.
40. Tarone, E.Communicative Strategies,Foreign Talk,and Repair in Interlanguage[J]. Language Learning,1980, (30):417-431.
41. Thep-Ackropong,T. Fossilization:A case study of practical and theoretical parameters.(Doctoral dissertation,Illinois State University,1990)[Z].Dissertation Abstract International,51,3005-A.1990.
42. Tudor,I.Learner-Centredness as Language Education [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1996.
43. Vigil,N.A.& J.W. Oller.Rule fossilization:A tentative model[J]. Language Learning.1976, (26): 281-295.
44. Vogosky, LS. Mind in Society [M].Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1978.
45. Washburn,Gay-N. Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition: A Vygotskian Perspective,(Doctoral dissertation,University of Pennsylvania,1992)[Z].Dissertation Abstracts International,52, 3849-A.(University Microfilm No.92-12, 021)
46. Widdowson,H.G..Teaching Language as Communication [M].London:Oxford University Press.1978.
47．陈慧媛，关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨[J]，外语教学与研究，1999，(3)：37-43
48．戴炜栋、束定芳，对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究制定若干问题[J]，外国语，1994，(5)：1-7
49．刘润清，胡壮麟，外语教学中的科研方法[M]，北京：外语教学出版社，1999．
50．刘润清，论大学英语教学[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999．
51．牛强，过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J]，外语与外语教学，2000，(5)：28-30
52．丘兆杰，EFL教学中的纠错问题[J]，外语界，1997，(2)：41-45
53．舒白梅，现代外语教学[M]，北京：中国环境科学出版社，1997．
54．唐承贤，差错分析综述[J]，外语教学与研究，1997，(2)：46-50
55．王初明，应用心理语言学[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1990．
56．许余龙，对比语言学概论[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992．
57．杨连瑞，试论中介语理论与外语教学[J]，外语教学，1996，(4)：19-23
58．朱曼殊、缪小春，心理语言学[M]，上海：华东师范大学出版社，1990．
2. Brown,H.D.Teaching by Principles.An Interactive Approach to the Pedagogy[M]. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall.1994.
3. Celce-Murcia,M.(ed.) Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language(2~(nd)edition) [M]. Boston, Massachusetts: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.1991.
4. College English Syllabus [Z].Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Educational Press.1999.
5. Corder, S.P. The Significance of Learners'Errors [J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1967, (5).
6. Dulay, H.,M.Burt and S.Krashen.Language Two [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1982.
7. Elaine,T and GeorgeY. Focus on the Language Learner [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1989.
8. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1994.
9. Faerch, C.,Haastrup,K. and Phillipson,R. Learner Language and Language Leaning [M].Clevedon,Avon:Multilingual Matters.1984:333.
10. Harmer,J. The Practice of English Language Teaching [M].New York:Longman,1991.
11. Hedge,T.Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.2000.
12. James,C. Errors in Language Learning and Use—Exploring Error Analysis [M].London and New York: Longman.1998.
13. Krashen,S. Lateralization,Language Learning,and the Critical Period:SomeNew Evidence[J]. Language Learning.1973, (23): 63-74.
14. Krashen,S. Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition [M].Oxford:Pergamon Press,1982.
15. Kreshen,S.The Input Hypothesis:lssues and Implications [M].New York:Longman,1985.
16. Lamendella,J.T.General Principles of Neurofunctional Organization.and Their Manifestations in Primary and Non-primary Language Acquisition [J].Language Learning,1977,(27):155-196.
17. Larsen-Freeman,D and Long, M.H.An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research [M]. London:Longman.1991.
18. Lenneberg,E. Biological Foundations of Language [M]. New York: Wiley and Sons,1967.
19. Littlewood, W. Foreign and Second Language Learning [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1984.
20. Mukkatesh,L.Persistence of Fossilization [J]. IRAL.1986,(24):187-203.
21 Major,J.Balancing Form and Function [J].International Review of Applied Linguistics,1988, (26): 81-100.
22. Mattews, P.H. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics [Z].New York:Oxford University Press.1997.
23. Nattinger J.R. and J.S.Decarrico.Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching [M],New York: Oxford University Press,1992.
24. Nunan, D. Research Methods in Language Learning [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press.1992.
25. Odlin,T. Language Transfer [M],Cambridge,Cambridge University Press.1989.
26. Omaggio,Alice C.Teaching Language in Context: Proficiency Oriented Inetructio.[M], Boston:Heinle & Heinle,1986.
27. Richards,J. Error Analysis [M]. London: Longman.1974.
28. Roseberry-Mckibbin,C. Multicutural Students With Special Language Needs[M], Oceanside,CA: Academic Communications Associates.1995.
29. Schumann,J. Second Language Acquisition Pidginization Hypothesis [J],
Language Learning,1976, (26).
30. Schumann,J. The Acculturation Model for Second Lananguage Acquisition[A]. In R. Gingras(ed.).Second Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching[C].Arington,VA: Center for Applied Linguistics,1978.
31. Seliger,H.Implications of A Multiple Critical Periods Hypothesis for Second Language Learning in Ritchie (ed.) [C].New York: Academic Press.1978.
32. Selinker, L.Interlanguage [J].IRAL,1972, (10).
33. Selinker, L.Rediscovering Interlanguage [M], London: Longman.1992.
34. Selinker, L and J. Lamendella.Fossilization in Interlanguage [A].In C.Blatchford and J.Schachter (eds.).EFL Policies,Program,Practices [C],Washington D.C:TESOL.1978.
35. Selinker, L. Fossilization:What We Think We Know [J/OL].1996.
36. Stern, H.H. (edited by Allen, P and B. Harley) Issues and Options in Language Teaching [M].Oxford:Oxford University Press.1992.
37. Stevick,E.Teaching Language: A Way and Ways [M].Rowly,Mass:Newbury House.1980.
38. Swain, M. Communicative Competence:Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible output in Its Development,Input in Second Language Acquisition [M].Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House.1985.
39. Sims,W. R.Fossilization and Learning Strategies on Second Language Acquisition[Z],(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED339 195),1989.
40. Tarone, E.Communicative Strategies,Foreign Talk,and Repair in Interlanguage[J]. Language Learning,1980, (30):417-431.
41. Thep-Ackropong,T. Fossilization:A case study of practical and theoretical parameters.(Doctoral dissertation,Illinois State University,1990)[Z].Dissertation Abstract International,51,3005-A.1990.
42. Tudor,I.Learner-Centredness as Language Education [M].Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.1996.
43. Vigil,N.A.& J.W. Oller.Rule fossilization:A tentative model[J]. Language Learning.1976, (26): 281-295.
44. Vogosky, LS. Mind in Society [M].Cambridge,MA:Harvard University Press.1978.
45. Washburn,Gay-N. Fossilization in Second Language Acquisition: A Vygotskian Perspective,(Doctoral dissertation,University of Pennsylvania,1992)[Z].Dissertation Abstracts International,52, 3849-A.(University Microfilm No.92-12, 021)
46. Widdowson,H.G..Teaching Language as Communication [M].London:Oxford University Press.1978.
47．陈慧媛，关于语言僵化现象起因的理论探讨[J]，外语教学与研究，1999，(3)：37-43
48．戴炜栋、束定芳，对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究制定若干问题[J]，外国语，1994，(5)：1-7
49．刘润清，胡壮麟，外语教学中的科研方法[M]，北京：外语教学出版社，1999．
50．刘润清，论大学英语教学[M]，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，1999．
51．牛强，过渡语的石化现象及其教学启示[J]，外语与外语教学，2000，(5)：28-30
52．丘兆杰，EFL教学中的纠错问题[J]，外语界，1997，(2)：41-45
53．舒白梅，现代外语教学[M]，北京：中国环境科学出版社，1997．
54．唐承贤，差错分析综述[J]，外语教学与研究，1997，(2)：46-50
55．王初明，应用心理语言学[M]，长沙：湖南教育出版社，1990．
56．许余龙，对比语言学概论[M]，上海：上海外语教育出版社，1992．
57．杨连瑞，试论中介语理论与外语教学[J]，外语教学，1996，(4)：19-23
58．朱曼殊、缪小春，心理语言学[M]，上海：华东师范大学出版社，1990．