对低水平非英语专业学生作文中的中介语错误分析
|
摘要
二语习得的研究始于20世纪60年代末70年代初。在该研究开始后不久,中介语这一概念就被研究者们采用用以指代学习者语言。Selinker(1972)首先提出中介语这一概念作为学习者的独立于第二语言的系统,它既不是本族语,也不是第二语言,而是一个处于本族语与目的语之间的连续体或临界体。学习者所创造的东西,无论正确与否,都是从第一语言到目的语之间的临界体的证据。国外的一些研究者们通过对各种二语学习者进行调查,收集各种相关数据,借助计算机进行各种分析,试图发现第二语言学习者的中介语的一些普遍性的东西,如发展模式。研究取得了一定的成绩,为外语教学提供了一系列建议。国内研究者也越来越关注对中介语的研究,他们针对不同的对象,获取各种语料,通过分析做出了相同或不同的结论。
以前的研究大多是对一些大学的英语专业学生或非英语专业的普通学生进行。而本研究的独特之处在于研究对象的特殊,即将研究目光放在一群特殊成员上。受试者来自国内某大学非英语专业的重修生(即在上一次期末大学英语考试中没能通过、不得不再次选修的学生),共60名,采集其作文为样本。作者认为写作作为一种重要的语言输出形式,更能充分暴露二语学习者的中介语水平,因为与即时对话相比,学习者有相对充分的时间进行思考和检查,能够尽量避免错误,从而更具有稳定性、可靠性。正如Goody(1977)所说,书面语言有2个功能,一是储存功能,它使交流超越时空限制,第二是使语言从口头形式向可见转移,使得词语与句子可在源语境之外被观察(引自Brown 2000:13)。同时,写作一直是二语教学中的难点和重要组成部分,反映学习者的综合语言水平——词汇,语法和逻辑思维能力,不管是非英语专业,还是英语专业,学习者写作水平的提高都是很困难的。原因很多,或是因为母语的干扰,或是来源于目的语本身(如过度概括),或发展中的错误。作者试图从受试者的作文中发现其中介语特征,提出具有针对性的教学建议。
本文共分5章。第一章介绍了本研究的背景,明确了研究目的,提出了研究问题并介绍了与本研究相关的理论与概念以及本研究的方法,数据的搜集。第二章讨论样本的搜集及就语料中的错误进行识别。第三章对样本中的错误进行分类,既描述与解释错误,并对所得数据进行了定性和定量的分析,确定各种错误的分布情况,并分析错误原因。第四章通过对研究对象的中介语的错误进行评价,讨论这些问题的严重程度,从而对学习者的中介语发展特点作出假设。第五章,总结了本研究的主要结论,说明其对外语教学的意义,并指明本研究的局限性,对进一步研究有参考价值。
作者将60份样本按得分2-5,6-82个等级分为2组。在正式研究之前,作者进行了一次前导试验,以便预测研究中可能出现的问题并保证本研究的顺利进行。在对即将进行的研究有了充分的认识与把握后,作者对两组受试者的作文进行错误识别,然后将这些错误进行描述及解释,计算出错误数量和频率。然后借助X~2检验,皮尔逊相关系数检验及离散度检验,对数据进行处理和分析。在对分析结果进行定性的分析与讨论后,研究者发现:
(1)目的语(英语)而非母语干扰是影响学习者中介语的主要原因:在本研究所搜集的语料中,目的语干扰所导致的错误约占60%。
(2)词汇仍是学习者最大的障碍或最艰巨的挑战。
(3)语法能力的培养不容忽视,甚至应有所加强,这与近年来要求弱化语法教学的建议相反。
(4)语料中显示出的语义错误说明语义问题应该是中介语的显著特征之一;语义问题与词汇选择紧密相关。
本研究对于大学非英语专业的写作学习有一定的指导意义,尤其是对于大学英语重修生,教师因应根据其弱点,有针对性的教学,并提出对英语教学的具体建议。
The concept of Interlanguage (IL) was introduced to mean learner language by researchers shortly after the beginning of the second language acquisition (SLA) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Selinker (1972) is the first one who suggested that interlanguage should be considered as an independent system from the second language. According to Selinker, interlanguage is neither a native language nor a second language; so what a learner produces is evidence of approximation between the first language and second language, no matter whether it is correct or not. In order to discover some universal developmental characteristics in SLA, foreign researchers have conducted various studies and analyzed data coming from learners with the help of computer. So far many significant achievements have been gained and teaching proposals offered. Recently domestic researchers have paid more and more attention to interlanguage, too. They chose subjects of varying levels and obtained rich language materials. By analyzing these materials they drew conclusions, some agreeing with each other, while others conflicting with each other.
Different from the previous related studies, which selected subjects from English majors or average non-English majors, the present study focuses on a special group, namely low-proficient students(these students who failed in the last final English test had to take it again.), in a certain Chinese university. The number of these subjects is 60. The writer collected their compositions as samples. Composition, the author thinks, is an important type of language output, through which learners' interlanguage can be adequately exposed. Because learners have relatively enough time to think or check to avoid more mistakes than when they are required to make a spontaneous speech. Hence, writing is more stable and can more accurately convey information of all aspects of learners' interlanguage. Goody (1977) suggests that written language has two functions: the first is the storage function which permits communication over time and space, and the second is that which 'shifts language from the oral to the visual domain' and permits words and sentences to be examined out of their original contexts (quoted from Brown 2000:13). For another thing, writing is a skill requiring knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and power of logic thinking. So not only non-English majors but also English majors have difficulty in improving writing skill because of various reasons, such as first language transfer, target language interference (overgeneralization) and developmental factors. The researcher tries to find out what characteristics these students' IL has and offer some constructive proposals.
This thesis is composed of five chapters. Chapter one introduces the background and purposes of this study, some theories and concepts concerned, as well as the methodology of this study. Chapter two deals with sample collection and error identification. Chapter three gives the description and explanation of errors, and employs qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyzing the data and establishing the distribution and resources of errors. Chapter four is about discussion of the gravity of errors as well as the characteristics of learners' IL. The last chapter gives the main conclusion. It also provides some pedagogical implications for second language teaching and offers some suggestions for further study while stating the limitations of this research.
The researcher classified these sixty samples into two groups according to the marks (2-5, 6-8). In order to predict potential problems and ensure the feasibility of this study, the writer conducted a pilot study. Having a clear understanding of the following study, the writer went on to describe and explain these errors in the corpus after identification of error was finished. Then data collection followed of error frequencies. Lastly, X~2 test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient test and Measures of Central Tendency test were employed to process and analyze the collected data. After the qualitative analysis and discussion of the results, the researcher has the following findings:
(1) Target language (English) interference, rather than mother tongue (Chinese) interference, is the main factor which affects low-proficient learners' IL in their English composition. Intralingual errors take around 60% in the corpus.
(2) Vocabulary is still the biggest obstacle or the toughest challenge for these learners.
(3) Grammatical competence can not be paid less attention to; instead, it should be strengthened in spite of the pedagogical claim that grammar teaching should be weakened.
(4) Semantically based IL errors should be regarded as one of the main characteristics made by low-proficient learners in writing. And a close relation exists between lexical choice and semantic errors.
This study is of referential significance for non-English majors' writing, especially those low-proficient students, and teachers should pay more attention to their weak points. The writer also provides certain pedagogical suggestions.
以前的研究大多是对一些大学的英语专业学生或非英语专业的普通学生进行。而本研究的独特之处在于研究对象的特殊,即将研究目光放在一群特殊成员上。受试者来自国内某大学非英语专业的重修生(即在上一次期末大学英语考试中没能通过、不得不再次选修的学生),共60名,采集其作文为样本。作者认为写作作为一种重要的语言输出形式,更能充分暴露二语学习者的中介语水平,因为与即时对话相比,学习者有相对充分的时间进行思考和检查,能够尽量避免错误,从而更具有稳定性、可靠性。正如Goody(1977)所说,书面语言有2个功能,一是储存功能,它使交流超越时空限制,第二是使语言从口头形式向可见转移,使得词语与句子可在源语境之外被观察(引自Brown 2000:13)。同时,写作一直是二语教学中的难点和重要组成部分,反映学习者的综合语言水平——词汇,语法和逻辑思维能力,不管是非英语专业,还是英语专业,学习者写作水平的提高都是很困难的。原因很多,或是因为母语的干扰,或是来源于目的语本身(如过度概括),或发展中的错误。作者试图从受试者的作文中发现其中介语特征,提出具有针对性的教学建议。
本文共分5章。第一章介绍了本研究的背景,明确了研究目的,提出了研究问题并介绍了与本研究相关的理论与概念以及本研究的方法,数据的搜集。第二章讨论样本的搜集及就语料中的错误进行识别。第三章对样本中的错误进行分类,既描述与解释错误,并对所得数据进行了定性和定量的分析,确定各种错误的分布情况,并分析错误原因。第四章通过对研究对象的中介语的错误进行评价,讨论这些问题的严重程度,从而对学习者的中介语发展特点作出假设。第五章,总结了本研究的主要结论,说明其对外语教学的意义,并指明本研究的局限性,对进一步研究有参考价值。
作者将60份样本按得分2-5,6-82个等级分为2组。在正式研究之前,作者进行了一次前导试验,以便预测研究中可能出现的问题并保证本研究的顺利进行。在对即将进行的研究有了充分的认识与把握后,作者对两组受试者的作文进行错误识别,然后将这些错误进行描述及解释,计算出错误数量和频率。然后借助X~2检验,皮尔逊相关系数检验及离散度检验,对数据进行处理和分析。在对分析结果进行定性的分析与讨论后,研究者发现:
(1)目的语(英语)而非母语干扰是影响学习者中介语的主要原因:在本研究所搜集的语料中,目的语干扰所导致的错误约占60%。
(2)词汇仍是学习者最大的障碍或最艰巨的挑战。
(3)语法能力的培养不容忽视,甚至应有所加强,这与近年来要求弱化语法教学的建议相反。
(4)语料中显示出的语义错误说明语义问题应该是中介语的显著特征之一;语义问题与词汇选择紧密相关。
本研究对于大学非英语专业的写作学习有一定的指导意义,尤其是对于大学英语重修生,教师因应根据其弱点,有针对性的教学,并提出对英语教学的具体建议。
The concept of Interlanguage (IL) was introduced to mean learner language by researchers shortly after the beginning of the second language acquisition (SLA) in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Selinker (1972) is the first one who suggested that interlanguage should be considered as an independent system from the second language. According to Selinker, interlanguage is neither a native language nor a second language; so what a learner produces is evidence of approximation between the first language and second language, no matter whether it is correct or not. In order to discover some universal developmental characteristics in SLA, foreign researchers have conducted various studies and analyzed data coming from learners with the help of computer. So far many significant achievements have been gained and teaching proposals offered. Recently domestic researchers have paid more and more attention to interlanguage, too. They chose subjects of varying levels and obtained rich language materials. By analyzing these materials they drew conclusions, some agreeing with each other, while others conflicting with each other.
Different from the previous related studies, which selected subjects from English majors or average non-English majors, the present study focuses on a special group, namely low-proficient students(these students who failed in the last final English test had to take it again.), in a certain Chinese university. The number of these subjects is 60. The writer collected their compositions as samples. Composition, the author thinks, is an important type of language output, through which learners' interlanguage can be adequately exposed. Because learners have relatively enough time to think or check to avoid more mistakes than when they are required to make a spontaneous speech. Hence, writing is more stable and can more accurately convey information of all aspects of learners' interlanguage. Goody (1977) suggests that written language has two functions: the first is the storage function which permits communication over time and space, and the second is that which 'shifts language from the oral to the visual domain' and permits words and sentences to be examined out of their original contexts (quoted from Brown 2000:13). For another thing, writing is a skill requiring knowledge of vocabulary, grammar and power of logic thinking. So not only non-English majors but also English majors have difficulty in improving writing skill because of various reasons, such as first language transfer, target language interference (overgeneralization) and developmental factors. The researcher tries to find out what characteristics these students' IL has and offer some constructive proposals.
This thesis is composed of five chapters. Chapter one introduces the background and purposes of this study, some theories and concepts concerned, as well as the methodology of this study. Chapter two deals with sample collection and error identification. Chapter three gives the description and explanation of errors, and employs qualitative and quantitative approaches to analyzing the data and establishing the distribution and resources of errors. Chapter four is about discussion of the gravity of errors as well as the characteristics of learners' IL. The last chapter gives the main conclusion. It also provides some pedagogical implications for second language teaching and offers some suggestions for further study while stating the limitations of this research.
The researcher classified these sixty samples into two groups according to the marks (2-5, 6-8). In order to predict potential problems and ensure the feasibility of this study, the writer conducted a pilot study. Having a clear understanding of the following study, the writer went on to describe and explain these errors in the corpus after identification of error was finished. Then data collection followed of error frequencies. Lastly, X~2 test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient test and Measures of Central Tendency test were employed to process and analyze the collected data. After the qualitative analysis and discussion of the results, the researcher has the following findings:
(1) Target language (English) interference, rather than mother tongue (Chinese) interference, is the main factor which affects low-proficient learners' IL in their English composition. Intralingual errors take around 60% in the corpus.
(2) Vocabulary is still the biggest obstacle or the toughest challenge for these learners.
(3) Grammatical competence can not be paid less attention to; instead, it should be strengthened in spite of the pedagogical claim that grammar teaching should be weakened.
(4) Semantically based IL errors should be regarded as one of the main characteristics made by low-proficient learners in writing. And a close relation exists between lexical choice and semantic errors.
This study is of referential significance for non-English majors' writing, especially those low-proficient students, and teachers should pay more attention to their weak points. The writer also provides certain pedagogical suggestions.
引文
Brown,G.& G.Yule.2000.Discourse Analysis 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Brown,H.1987.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 「M」.Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey:Prentice-Hall Regents.
Cook,G.and B.Seidlhofer.1995.Principals and Practice in Applied Linguistics 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Corder,S.P.1971.Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis 「J」.International Review of Applied Linguistics.9:149-159.
Corder,S.P.1974.Error analysis 「A」.In Allen and Coder(eds.).
Corder,S.P.1981.Error Analysis and Interlanguage 「M」.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dulay,H,Burr,M and S.Krashen.1982.Language Two 「M」.New York:Oxford University Press.
Ellis,R.1999a.The Study of Second Language Acquisition 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis,R.1999b.Understanding Second Language Acquisition 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
George,H.1972.Common Errors in Language Learning:Insights from English 「M」.Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House.
Goody,J.1977.The Domestication of the Savage Mind 「M」.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grauberg,W.1971.An error analysis in the German of first-year university students 「A」.In Perren and Trim(eds.)1971.
James,C.2001.Errors in Language Learning and Use:Exploring Error Analysis 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Research and Teaching Press.
Khalil,A.1985.Communicative error evaluations:native speakers' evaluation and interpretation of written errors of Arab EFL learners 「J」.TESOL Quarterly.
Lado,R.1957.Linguistic Across Culture:Applied Linguistics for Language Teacher 「M」.Ann Arbor,Michigan:University of Michigan
Larsen-Freeman,D and M.Long.2000.An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Leech,G.2001.The Role of Frequency in ELT:New Corpus Evidence Brings a Re-appraisal 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lennon,P.1991.Error:some problems of definition,identification and distinction 「J」.Applied Linguistics 12:180-195.
Long,M.and C.Sato.1984.Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:An interactionist perspective 「A」.In Davies et al.(eds.).
Lott,D.1983.Analysis and counteracting interference errors 「J」.English Language Teaching Journal 37:256-261
Nemser,W.1971.Approximative systems of foreign language learners 「J」International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:115-123.
Odlin,T.1989.Language Transfer 「M」.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards,J.1971a.Error analysis and second language strategies 「J」.Language Sciences.17:12-22.
Richards,J.1971b.A non-contrastive approach to error Analysis 「J」.English Language Teaching Joural.
Richards,J.et al.1985.Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics 「M」.London:Longman Group UK Limited.
Ringbom,H.1991.Crosslinguistic lexical influence and foreign language leaming 「A」 in Phillipson et al.(eds.).
Selinker,L.1969.Language transfer 「J」.General Linguistics.
Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage 「A」.In Richards(ed.)1974.
Tarone,E.1983.On the variability of interlanguage systems 「J」.Applied Linguistics 4/2:143-163.
Taylor,G.1986.Errors and explanations 「J」.Applied Linguistics.
Taylor,B.1975.Adult language learning strategies and their pedagogical implications 「J」.TESOL Quarterly 9:391-399.
Tran-Chi-Chan.1975.Error analysis,contrastive analysis and students' perceptions:a study of difficulty in second language learning 「J」.International Review of Applied Linguistics 13:119-143.
Weinreich,U.1953.Language in Contact 「M」.The Hague:Mouton.
Widdowson,H.1975.The significance of simplification 「J」.Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
戴炜栋,束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题-外语教学研究理论之二「J」。外国语(5)。
戴炜栋,王栋,2002,语言迁移研究:问题与思考「J」。外国语(1)。
丁望道,1996,英语写作手册「M」。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
何筑丽,1998,谈大学英语写作能力的培养「J」。山东外语教学(2)。
马广惠,文秋芳,2000,大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究「M」。外语教学与研究(4)。
孙骊,1997,英语写作「M」。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
孙勉志,2001,汉语环境与英语学习「M」。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
吴云,1998,词汇困惑与英语写作技能的提高「A」。李光应(编),《研究生英语教学研究论文集》「C」。
Brown,H.1987.Principles of Language Learning and Teaching 「M」.Englewood Cliffs,New Jersey:Prentice-Hall Regents.
Cook,G.and B.Seidlhofer.1995.Principals and Practice in Applied Linguistics 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Corder,S.P.1971.Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis 「J」.International Review of Applied Linguistics.9:149-159.
Corder,S.P.1974.Error analysis 「A」.In Allen and Coder(eds.).
Corder,S.P.1981.Error Analysis and Interlanguage 「M」.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Dulay,H,Burr,M and S.Krashen.1982.Language Two 「M」.New York:Oxford University Press.
Ellis,R.1999a.The Study of Second Language Acquisition 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Ellis,R.1999b.Understanding Second Language Acquisition 「M」.Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
George,H.1972.Common Errors in Language Learning:Insights from English 「M」.Rowley,Mass.:Newbury House.
Goody,J.1977.The Domestication of the Savage Mind 「M」.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Grauberg,W.1971.An error analysis in the German of first-year university students 「A」.In Perren and Trim(eds.)1971.
James,C.2001.Errors in Language Learning and Use:Exploring Error Analysis 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Research and Teaching Press.
Khalil,A.1985.Communicative error evaluations:native speakers' evaluation and interpretation of written errors of Arab EFL learners 「J」.TESOL Quarterly.
Lado,R.1957.Linguistic Across Culture:Applied Linguistics for Language Teacher 「M」.Ann Arbor,Michigan:University of Michigan
Larsen-Freeman,D and M.Long.2000.An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Leech,G.2001.The Role of Frequency in ELT:New Corpus Evidence Brings a Re-appraisal 「M」.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Lennon,P.1991.Error:some problems of definition,identification and distinction 「J」.Applied Linguistics 12:180-195.
Long,M.and C.Sato.1984.Methodological issues in interlanguage studies:An interactionist perspective 「A」.In Davies et al.(eds.).
Lott,D.1983.Analysis and counteracting interference errors 「J」.English Language Teaching Journal 37:256-261
Nemser,W.1971.Approximative systems of foreign language learners 「J」International Review of Applied Linguistics 9:115-123.
Odlin,T.1989.Language Transfer 「M」.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Richards,J.1971a.Error analysis and second language strategies 「J」.Language Sciences.17:12-22.
Richards,J.1971b.A non-contrastive approach to error Analysis 「J」.English Language Teaching Joural.
Richards,J.et al.1985.Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics 「M」.London:Longman Group UK Limited.
Ringbom,H.1991.Crosslinguistic lexical influence and foreign language leaming 「A」 in Phillipson et al.(eds.).
Selinker,L.1969.Language transfer 「J」.General Linguistics.
Selinker,L.1972.Interlanguage 「A」.In Richards(ed.)1974.
Tarone,E.1983.On the variability of interlanguage systems 「J」.Applied Linguistics 4/2:143-163.
Taylor,G.1986.Errors and explanations 「J」.Applied Linguistics.
Taylor,B.1975.Adult language learning strategies and their pedagogical implications 「J」.TESOL Quarterly 9:391-399.
Tran-Chi-Chan.1975.Error analysis,contrastive analysis and students' perceptions:a study of difficulty in second language learning 「J」.International Review of Applied Linguistics 13:119-143.
Weinreich,U.1953.Language in Contact 「M」.The Hague:Mouton.
Widdowson,H.1975.The significance of simplification 「J」.Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
戴炜栋,束定芳,1994,对比分析、错误分析和中介语研究中的若干问题-外语教学研究理论之二「J」。外国语(5)。
戴炜栋,王栋,2002,语言迁移研究:问题与思考「J」。外国语(1)。
丁望道,1996,英语写作手册「M」。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
何筑丽,1998,谈大学英语写作能力的培养「J」。山东外语教学(2)。
马广惠,文秋芳,2000,大学生英语写作能力的影响因素研究「M」。外语教学与研究(4)。
孙骊,1997,英语写作「M」。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
孙勉志,2001,汉语环境与英语学习「M」。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
吴云,1998,词汇困惑与英语写作技能的提高「A」。李光应(编),《研究生英语教学研究论文集》「C」。