英语专业学生英语写作中句法层面的汉语负迁移研究
|
摘要
“迁移是指目标语和其他任何已经习得的(或者没有完全习得的)语言之间的共性和差异所造成的影响。”(Odlin,1989)一直以来,语言迁移都是二语习得及外语教学领域的焦点问题。在20世纪50、60年代,以Lado为代表的行为主义者把语言迁移视作“干扰”,对比分析研究流行一时。到了20世纪70年代,以Corder为代表的语言学家把语言迁移视作“交际策略”,对比分析逐渐让位于错误分析。最近,以Schachter为代表的语言学家又将语言迁移视作认知心理过程。20世纪90年代以来,随着计算机技术的迅猛发展和学习者语料库的建立,语言迁移的语料库研究取得了大量的成果,但是,受标注和分析技术所限,目前的研究主要是在词汇层面,句法层面的研究尚十分有限。
在本论文中,作者以对比分析、错误分析和标记理论为基础,以定性分析和定量分析相结合为研究方法,对英语专业学生英语写作中句法层面的母语负迁移做了实证性的研究,目的是探讨母语负迁移对英语写作句法层面的影响。具体来说,本文试图回答如下问题：
(1)英语专业学生在英语写作句法层面上,会出现哪些由母语负迁移引起的错误?引起这些错误的具体原因是什么?
(2)英语专业学生在英语写作过程中,利用汉语思维吗?汉语思维是否对学生的写作产生了负面影响?
(3)通过对汉语负迁移在英语写作句法层面上引起的错误,可以得出哪些教学启示?
本课题的研究对象是青岛求实职业技术学院的两个英语专业大二班,共62名学生.研究工具包括课后作业、考试作文及问卷调查。首先在学生完成句子写作部分学习后,要求学生课后完成一次“句子改错”的练习题。其次在学生期末考试试题当中,要求学生完成一篇应用文。为了调查学生是否在英语写作过程中,采用母语思维,在期末考试前对学生进行了一次问卷调查。资料收集完毕后,作者对学生习作进行了分析和筛选,收集了全部有效样本,并对母语负迁移引起的错误加以分析和归类。并在第四章节对母语负迁移引起的这些错误进行了详细的分析。
在判定哪些句法错误是由汉语负迁移引起的问题上,采用了James(1980)提出的并为对比分析学家们普遍采用的翻译对等的标准,即将汉语和英语的形式等同起来以判断某个异常形式是否由汉语干扰所引起。Dulay, Burt和Krashen(1982)也曾提及,研究者在辨认某个错误是否由母语干扰所引起时,通常是把学习者生成的短语或句子的语法形式译成学习者的母语以确认是否存在相似性。与Dulay和Burt不同,在本论文中,作者将凡带有母语因素的错误都归为由母语干扰引起的,其逻辑依据是“即使本族语在错误的表现方面只是作为补充因素或次要因素,它仍能被看作是在学习者的目标语中的单词和句子的认知结构的形成中起了一定作用”(Danesi & Di Pietro,1991:22)。
本研究主要有以下两个发现：
第一,研究中主要发现了十种由母语负迁移引起的句法层面的写作错误,即流水句、重复、一致性、省略、原因状语从句用作独立句子、词序、兼语结构、回避、被动结构以及其他负迁移引起的句法错误。其中,流水句的比例高居第一位,占44.8%；重复引起的写作错误位居第二位,占14.7%。
其次,通过问卷调查证实,学生在英语写作过程中,的确采用了母语思维,从而导致了写作中由母语负迁移引起的错误,并影响了学生写作的句法正确性。
基于以上研究发现,作者还探讨了母语负迁移对英语教学的启示：(1)鼓励学生使用英英词典(2)正确对待学生的写作错误,要看到学生写作错误所提供的正面信息,并进行有针对性的教学(3)在课堂教学中,进行英汉句法方面的对比教学(4)加大英语语言输入量,帮助学生培养英语思维模式(5)对学生写作中的写作错误,做出有效反馈,不宜过度纠正,打击学生信心。
"Transfer is the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired." (Odlin,1989) Language transfer has been a central issue in the field of second language acquisition and foreign language teaching for a long time. Between the 1950s and 1960s, the behaviorists, with Lado as the representative, considered language transfer as interference and contrastive analysis became prevalent for a short while. In the 1970s, the linguists, with Corder as the representative, regarded language transfer as communication strategy and contrastive analysis gradually lost ground to error analysis. Until recently, the linguists, with Schachter as the representative, viewed language transfer as a complex psychological cognitive process. Since 1990s, with the rapid development of computer technology and the establishment of learners' corpus, the corpus-based study on language transfer has gained a large number of achievements. However, with the confinement of marking and analysis techniques, studies at the moment are mainly conducted at lexical level and those at syntactic level remains quite limited.
In the thesis, based on the theories of Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Markedness Theory, the author combines qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis to probe into the influence of native language transfer in Chinese students' English writing at syntactic level. Specifically, the thesis aims at answering the following questions:
(1) What kind of errors do English majors often commit at syntactic level in their English writings and what are the reasons that cause these errors?
(2) Do the English majors employ L1 thinking ways in their English writing process and do these L1 thinking ways negatively influence their writings?
(3) Based on the findings, what implications can be drawn for English teaching?
The subjects for the study are sixty-two sophomores of English majors from two classes in Qingdao Qiu Shi Vocational College. Three instruments are adopted in the research:English writing assignment, English writing test and questionnaire. The students were told to finish a "sentence correction" assignment after they finish learning sentence writing. Then in their final examination paper, they were asked to write down a composition——a letter of complaints. Questionnaires were done just before the students' final examination. Next the author collected the valid writing samples for analysis, and analysed in detail those errors resulting from Chinese influence at syntactic level in the thesis. The errors from negative Chinese transfer at other levels and the errors not due to Chinese influence are neglected.
In identifying the errors from Chinese transfer, James'"equivalence translation" (1980) is adopted in the study, that is, the structures of Chinese sentences and English sentences are equated to decide whether an abnormal structure is from Chinese transfer. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) also mentioned that researchers usually translated the structures from TL into NL to decide the similarities between TL and NL. Different from Dulay and Burt, the author treats all the errors relevant to NL as the ones from NL transfer. The foundation is that though sometimes NL is just a minor factor in the causes of errors, it is still considered to have influenced the formation of the sentences in TL (Danesi and Di Pietro,1991:22).
The study results in the following two findings:
First, ten main types of transfer errors are found in the study—run-on sentences, repetition, concord, ellipsis, adverbial clauses of cause used as independent sentences, word order, concurrent structures, avoidance, passive voice and other syntactic errors. Among the errors, run-on sentence runs the top and constitutes 44.8%, and repetition comes the second and constitutes 14.7%.
Then, through the questionnaires to investigate the influence of L1 thinking way in the students' writing process, it proves that the English majors do employ L1 thinking way in their writing process, leading to the negative transfer of L1 in the writing products and eventually negatively influence their writings.
Based on the findings, this thesis also puts forward some pedagogical implications for English teaching:1) encouraging students to use English-English dictionaries 2) treating the learners'errors properly 3) introducing contrastive syntactic structures in class 4) enlarging language input and help students develop the English thinking mode 5) feedbacking effectively to transfer errors.
在本论文中,作者以对比分析、错误分析和标记理论为基础,以定性分析和定量分析相结合为研究方法,对英语专业学生英语写作中句法层面的母语负迁移做了实证性的研究,目的是探讨母语负迁移对英语写作句法层面的影响。具体来说,本文试图回答如下问题：
(1)英语专业学生在英语写作句法层面上,会出现哪些由母语负迁移引起的错误?引起这些错误的具体原因是什么?
(2)英语专业学生在英语写作过程中,利用汉语思维吗?汉语思维是否对学生的写作产生了负面影响?
(3)通过对汉语负迁移在英语写作句法层面上引起的错误,可以得出哪些教学启示?
本课题的研究对象是青岛求实职业技术学院的两个英语专业大二班,共62名学生.研究工具包括课后作业、考试作文及问卷调查。首先在学生完成句子写作部分学习后,要求学生课后完成一次“句子改错”的练习题。其次在学生期末考试试题当中,要求学生完成一篇应用文。为了调查学生是否在英语写作过程中,采用母语思维,在期末考试前对学生进行了一次问卷调查。资料收集完毕后,作者对学生习作进行了分析和筛选,收集了全部有效样本,并对母语负迁移引起的错误加以分析和归类。并在第四章节对母语负迁移引起的这些错误进行了详细的分析。
在判定哪些句法错误是由汉语负迁移引起的问题上,采用了James(1980)提出的并为对比分析学家们普遍采用的翻译对等的标准,即将汉语和英语的形式等同起来以判断某个异常形式是否由汉语干扰所引起。Dulay, Burt和Krashen(1982)也曾提及,研究者在辨认某个错误是否由母语干扰所引起时,通常是把学习者生成的短语或句子的语法形式译成学习者的母语以确认是否存在相似性。与Dulay和Burt不同,在本论文中,作者将凡带有母语因素的错误都归为由母语干扰引起的,其逻辑依据是“即使本族语在错误的表现方面只是作为补充因素或次要因素,它仍能被看作是在学习者的目标语中的单词和句子的认知结构的形成中起了一定作用”(Danesi & Di Pietro,1991:22)。
本研究主要有以下两个发现：
第一,研究中主要发现了十种由母语负迁移引起的句法层面的写作错误,即流水句、重复、一致性、省略、原因状语从句用作独立句子、词序、兼语结构、回避、被动结构以及其他负迁移引起的句法错误。其中,流水句的比例高居第一位,占44.8%；重复引起的写作错误位居第二位,占14.7%。
其次,通过问卷调查证实,学生在英语写作过程中,的确采用了母语思维,从而导致了写作中由母语负迁移引起的错误,并影响了学生写作的句法正确性。
基于以上研究发现,作者还探讨了母语负迁移对英语教学的启示：(1)鼓励学生使用英英词典(2)正确对待学生的写作错误,要看到学生写作错误所提供的正面信息,并进行有针对性的教学(3)在课堂教学中,进行英汉句法方面的对比教学(4)加大英语语言输入量,帮助学生培养英语思维模式(5)对学生写作中的写作错误,做出有效反馈,不宜过度纠正,打击学生信心。
"Transfer is the influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired." (Odlin,1989) Language transfer has been a central issue in the field of second language acquisition and foreign language teaching for a long time. Between the 1950s and 1960s, the behaviorists, with Lado as the representative, considered language transfer as interference and contrastive analysis became prevalent for a short while. In the 1970s, the linguists, with Corder as the representative, regarded language transfer as communication strategy and contrastive analysis gradually lost ground to error analysis. Until recently, the linguists, with Schachter as the representative, viewed language transfer as a complex psychological cognitive process. Since 1990s, with the rapid development of computer technology and the establishment of learners' corpus, the corpus-based study on language transfer has gained a large number of achievements. However, with the confinement of marking and analysis techniques, studies at the moment are mainly conducted at lexical level and those at syntactic level remains quite limited.
In the thesis, based on the theories of Contrastive Analysis, Error Analysis and Markedness Theory, the author combines qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis to probe into the influence of native language transfer in Chinese students' English writing at syntactic level. Specifically, the thesis aims at answering the following questions:
(1) What kind of errors do English majors often commit at syntactic level in their English writings and what are the reasons that cause these errors?
(2) Do the English majors employ L1 thinking ways in their English writing process and do these L1 thinking ways negatively influence their writings?
(3) Based on the findings, what implications can be drawn for English teaching?
The subjects for the study are sixty-two sophomores of English majors from two classes in Qingdao Qiu Shi Vocational College. Three instruments are adopted in the research:English writing assignment, English writing test and questionnaire. The students were told to finish a "sentence correction" assignment after they finish learning sentence writing. Then in their final examination paper, they were asked to write down a composition——a letter of complaints. Questionnaires were done just before the students' final examination. Next the author collected the valid writing samples for analysis, and analysed in detail those errors resulting from Chinese influence at syntactic level in the thesis. The errors from negative Chinese transfer at other levels and the errors not due to Chinese influence are neglected.
In identifying the errors from Chinese transfer, James'"equivalence translation" (1980) is adopted in the study, that is, the structures of Chinese sentences and English sentences are equated to decide whether an abnormal structure is from Chinese transfer. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) also mentioned that researchers usually translated the structures from TL into NL to decide the similarities between TL and NL. Different from Dulay and Burt, the author treats all the errors relevant to NL as the ones from NL transfer. The foundation is that though sometimes NL is just a minor factor in the causes of errors, it is still considered to have influenced the formation of the sentences in TL (Danesi and Di Pietro,1991:22).
The study results in the following two findings:
First, ten main types of transfer errors are found in the study—run-on sentences, repetition, concord, ellipsis, adverbial clauses of cause used as independent sentences, word order, concurrent structures, avoidance, passive voice and other syntactic errors. Among the errors, run-on sentence runs the top and constitutes 44.8%, and repetition comes the second and constitutes 14.7%.
Then, through the questionnaires to investigate the influence of L1 thinking way in the students' writing process, it proves that the English majors do employ L1 thinking way in their writing process, leading to the negative transfer of L1 in the writing products and eventually negatively influence their writings.
Based on the findings, this thesis also puts forward some pedagogical implications for English teaching:1) encouraging students to use English-English dictionaries 2) treating the learners'errors properly 3) introducing contrastive syntactic structures in class 4) enlarging language input and help students develop the English thinking mode 5) feedbacking effectively to transfer errors.
引文
Bacon, S. M. & Finnemann, M. Sex Differences in Self-Reported Beliefs about Foreign Language Learning and Authentic Oral and Written Input. Language Learning,1992,42: 471-495
Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:Pearson Hall Regents, 1994.120-160
Corder, S. P. The Significance of Learners' Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967,(5):161-169
Corder, S. P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1981.6-37
Corder, S. P. Language-Learner Language. In:J. Richards, eds. Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning:Issues and Approaches.Rowley, Mass:Newbury House,1978. 71-93
Croft, W. Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Danesi, M. & Di Pietro, R. J. Contrastive Analysis for the Contemporary Second Language Classroom. Toronto:The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,1991.15-68
Dulay, H. & M. Burt. Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,1974,(8):129-136
Dulay, H, Burt, M. and Krashen, S. Language Two. New York:Oxford University Press,1982. 28-45
Eckman, F. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning,1977,27: 315-330
Eckman, F. Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1985, (7):289-307
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994. 299-345
Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.20 25; 204-209
Flick, W. A Multiple Component Approach to Research in Second Language Acquisition. In: Anderson, eds. The Acquisition and Use of Spanish and English as First and Second Languages. Washington D. C:TESOL,1979.35-43
Fries, Charles. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1945.9-11
Givon, T. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
Givon, T. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1984.
Greenberg, J. H. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In:J. H. Greenberg, eds. Universal of Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press,1966.
Hyltemstam, K. The Use of Typological Markedness Conditions as Predictors in Second Language Acquisition:The Case of Pronominal Copies in Relative Clauses. In:R. Anderson, eds. Second Language:A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House,1984. 26-32
Jack, C. Richards. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press,2000.
Jackson, K. R. Whitnam. Evaluation of the Predictive Power of Contrastive Analysis of Japanese and English. US Office of Health, Education and Welfare,1971.
James, C. Contrastive Analysis. London:Longman,1980.
Jokobson, R. Children Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague:Mouton, 1941.
Kellerman, E. Toward a Characterization of the Strategies of Transfer in Second Language Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin,1977, (2):58-145
Kellerman, E. Giving Learners a Break:Native Language Intuitions as a Source of Predictions about Transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism,1978, (15):59-92
Kellerman, E. Transfer and Non-transfer:Where Are We Now?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1979, (2):37-57
Kellerman, E. "Another Look at an Old Classic:Schachter's Avoidance". Lecture Notes, Tokyo: Temple University Japan,1992.
Kellerman, E. Aspects of Transferability in Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmagen,1987.
Kobayashi, Hiroe & Rinnert. "Carol. Effects of First Language on Second Language Writing: Translation Versus Direct Composition. Language Learning,1992,01(2):183-215
Krashen, S. Second Language Learning and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1981.
Krashen, S. The Input Hypothesis:Issues and Implications. New York:Longman,1985.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.52-61; 100-101
Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan Press,1957.
Michael Sharwood Smith. & Kellerman, Eric. Cross Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition:An Introduction. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1986.
Nuttall, C. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London:Heinemmann,1982.
Odlin, T. Language Transfer:Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.1-29; 69-168
O' Malley, J. & Chamot, A. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.233
P. Paul Heppner & Mary J. Heppner. Writing Your Thesis, Dissertation & Research. Beijing: Peking University Press,2009.
Richards, J. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London:Longman,1985.96
Richards, J. C, Platt, J. and Platt, H. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Rosenwasser & Jill Stephen. Writing Analytically. Beijing:Peking University Press,2008.
Stern, H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983. 160
Schachter, J. An Error in Error Analysis. Language Learning,1974,24:205-214
Swan, M. & Smith, B. Learner English:A Teacher's Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
Schachter, J. An Error in Error Analysis. Language Learning,1974,24:205-214
Tsang, Wai-King. Comparing the Effects of Reading and Writing on Writing Performance. Applied Linguistics,1990,17(2):210-233
Webster's Third New International Dictionary. New Haven:The Merriam Webster, Inc,1986.
Zhang Wengxia. The Rhetorical Patterns Found in Chinese Student Writers'Examination Essays in English and the Influence of These Patterns on Rater Response. Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2004.253
Zobl, H. Cross-language Generalizations and Contrastive Dimension of the Interlanguage Hypothesis. In:Davies, eds. Interlanguage. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,1984.
Zobl, H. Markedness and the Projection Problem. Language Learning,1983,33:293-313
蔡金亭.母语迁移与主题突出结构.解放军外语学院学报,1998,(6)：13-17
陈昌义.外语和第二语言不能混为一谈.外语界,2001,(3)：9-14
郭纯洁,刘芳.外语写作中母浯影响的动态研究.现代外浯,1997,(4)：30-38
胡壮麟.语言学教程.北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
乐眉云.应用语言学.南京：南京师范大学出版社,1999.98-116
寮菲.第二语言习得中的母语迁移现象分析.外语教学与研究,1998,(2)：58-64
刘润清.外语教学中的研究方法.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
王立非.关于标记理论.外国语,1991,(4)：30-34
王文字,文秋芳.母语思维与二语写作：大学生英语写作过程研究.解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(7)：64-67
文秋芳,郭纯洁.母语思维与外语写作能力的关系：对高中生英语看图作文过程的研究.现代外语,1998,(4)：44-56
萧立明.英汉比较研究与翻译.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
俞理明.语言迁移与二语习得.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.1-147
章振邦.新编英语语法教程.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.
Brown, H. D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:Pearson Hall Regents, 1994.120-160
Corder, S. P. The Significance of Learners' Errors. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967,(5):161-169
Corder, S. P. Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1981.6-37
Corder, S. P. Language-Learner Language. In:J. Richards, eds. Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning:Issues and Approaches.Rowley, Mass:Newbury House,1978. 71-93
Croft, W. Typology and Universals. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1990.
Danesi, M. & Di Pietro, R. J. Contrastive Analysis for the Contemporary Second Language Classroom. Toronto:The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education,1991.15-68
Dulay, H. & M. Burt. Errors and Strategies in Child Second Language Acquisition. TESOL Quarterly,1974,(8):129-136
Dulay, H, Burt, M. and Krashen, S. Language Two. New York:Oxford University Press,1982. 28-45
Eckman, F. Markedness and the Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. Language Learning,1977,27: 315-330
Eckman, F. Some Theoretical and Pedagogical Implications of the Markedness Differential Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1985, (7):289-307
Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994. 299-345
Ellis, R. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1985.20 25; 204-209
Flick, W. A Multiple Component Approach to Research in Second Language Acquisition. In: Anderson, eds. The Acquisition and Use of Spanish and English as First and Second Languages. Washington D. C:TESOL,1979.35-43
Fries, Charles. Teaching and Learning English as a Foreign Language. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press,1945.9-11
Givon, T. Functionalism and Grammar. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1995.
Givon, T. Syntax:A Functional-Typological Introduction. Amsterdam:John Benjamins,1984.
Greenberg, J. H. Some Universals of Grammar with Particular Reference to the Order of Meaningful Elements. In:J. H. Greenberg, eds. Universal of Language. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press,1966.
Hyltemstam, K. The Use of Typological Markedness Conditions as Predictors in Second Language Acquisition:The Case of Pronominal Copies in Relative Clauses. In:R. Anderson, eds. Second Language:A Crosslinguistic Perspective. Rowley, Mass:Newbury House,1984. 26-32
Jack, C. Richards. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching & Applied Linguistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching & Research Press,2000.
Jackson, K. R. Whitnam. Evaluation of the Predictive Power of Contrastive Analysis of Japanese and English. US Office of Health, Education and Welfare,1971.
James, C. Contrastive Analysis. London:Longman,1980.
Jokobson, R. Children Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague:Mouton, 1941.
Kellerman, E. Toward a Characterization of the Strategies of Transfer in Second Language Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin,1977, (2):58-145
Kellerman, E. Giving Learners a Break:Native Language Intuitions as a Source of Predictions about Transferability. Working Papers on Bilingualism,1978, (15):59-92
Kellerman, E. Transfer and Non-transfer:Where Are We Now?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,1979, (2):37-57
Kellerman, E. "Another Look at an Old Classic:Schachter's Avoidance". Lecture Notes, Tokyo: Temple University Japan,1992.
Kellerman, E. Aspects of Transferability in Second Language Acquisition. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmagen,1987.
Kobayashi, Hiroe & Rinnert. "Carol. Effects of First Language on Second Language Writing: Translation Versus Direct Composition. Language Learning,1992,01(2):183-215
Krashen, S. Second Language Learning and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1981.
Krashen, S. The Input Hypothesis:Issues and Implications. New York:Longman,1985.
Larsen-Freeman, D. & Long, M. H. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.52-61; 100-101
Lado, R. Linguistics Across Cultures. Ann Arbor, Michigan:University of Michigan Press,1957.
Michael Sharwood Smith. & Kellerman, Eric. Cross Linguistic Influence in Second Language Acquisition:An Introduction. Oxford:Pergamon Press,1986.
Nuttall, C. Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language. London:Heinemmann,1982.
Odlin, T. Language Transfer:Cross-Linguistic Influence in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1989.1-29; 69-168
O' Malley, J. & Chamot, A. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,1990.233
P. Paul Heppner & Mary J. Heppner. Writing Your Thesis, Dissertation & Research. Beijing: Peking University Press,2009.
Richards, J. Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. London:Longman,1985.96
Richards, J. C, Platt, J. and Platt, H. Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Rosenwasser & Jill Stephen. Writing Analytically. Beijing:Peking University Press,2008.
Stern, H. Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1983. 160
Schachter, J. An Error in Error Analysis. Language Learning,1974,24:205-214
Swan, M. & Smith, B. Learner English:A Teacher's Guide to Interference and Other Problems. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987.
Schachter, J. An Error in Error Analysis. Language Learning,1974,24:205-214
Tsang, Wai-King. Comparing the Effects of Reading and Writing on Writing Performance. Applied Linguistics,1990,17(2):210-233
Webster's Third New International Dictionary. New Haven:The Merriam Webster, Inc,1986.
Zhang Wengxia. The Rhetorical Patterns Found in Chinese Student Writers'Examination Essays in English and the Influence of These Patterns on Rater Response. Beijing:Tsinghua University Press,2004.253
Zobl, H. Cross-language Generalizations and Contrastive Dimension of the Interlanguage Hypothesis. In:Davies, eds. Interlanguage. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press,1984.
Zobl, H. Markedness and the Projection Problem. Language Learning,1983,33:293-313
蔡金亭.母语迁移与主题突出结构.解放军外语学院学报,1998,(6)：13-17
陈昌义.外语和第二语言不能混为一谈.外语界,2001,(3)：9-14
郭纯洁,刘芳.外语写作中母浯影响的动态研究.现代外浯,1997,(4)：30-38
胡壮麟.语言学教程.北京：北京大学出版社,2001.
乐眉云.应用语言学.南京：南京师范大学出版社,1999.98-116
寮菲.第二语言习得中的母语迁移现象分析.外语教学与研究,1998,(2)：58-64
刘润清.外语教学中的研究方法.北京：外语教学与研究出版社,1999.
王立非.关于标记理论.外国语,1991,(4)：30-34
王文字,文秋芳.母语思维与二语写作：大学生英语写作过程研究.解放军外国语学院学报,2002,(7)：64-67
文秋芳,郭纯洁.母语思维与外语写作能力的关系：对高中生英语看图作文过程的研究.现代外语,1998,(4)：44-56
萧立明.英汉比较研究与翻译.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2001.
俞理明.语言迁移与二语习得.上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004.1-147
章振邦.新编英语语法教程.上海：上海外语教育出版社,1999.