|
点击上方“武太白金星人”或长按文末二维码识别后可选择关注，点击右上角按钮可选择分享到朋友圈、发送给微信群。您的关注转发是我最需要的帮助。感谢！ 导读：本篇是二语习得泰斗Stephen D. Krashen的著作《二语习得原则与实践（Principles and Practice of Second Language Acquisition）》第二章“第二语言习得理论”A节“有关第二语言习得的五个假说”中的第四个假说，探讨的是语言习得的实际过程。当代外语教学的基石i-->i+1，就是在这个假说中提出来的。按照这一假说，只要提供足够的、与真实语言环境相匹配的输入，学习者就能够自然地从现有的语言能力（i）进步到略高一层次的语言能力（i+1）。 本篇很长，将分三期刊出，本篇是第二篇。为促进朋友们多看英文原文，今天先不放译文，明天刊出。我在文中设置了五个空，每空一词，首字母已给出，朋友们看看应该填什么，有兴趣的朋友可以试试填一下，回复给微信公号“武太白金星人”，每答对1题获得1分积分，未来可以用于图书的兑换。明天我随译文公布答案。 本文首发于“武太白金星人”微信公众账号，把本文分享到您朋友圈后点击本文标题下方蓝色字选择关注该公号并回复“Krashen”（大小写没关系，引号不要，请确保单词后没有多余空格）即可收到上文图书的英文原版全本PDF。该书仅供个人学习研究使用，请勿用作商业用途，并请于下载24小时后自觉删除。祝朋友们学习进步！ ------------------------ 原文 A third characteristic of caretaker speech that concerns us is known as the "here and now" principle. It is well established that caretakers talk mostly about what the child can perceive, what is in the immediate environment. Discourse with children is far more likely to deal with what is in the room and happening now ("See the ball?") than what is not in the room and not current ("What will we do upstairs tomorrow?"). As Newport et al. (1977) points out, this is a topical constraint--the "here and now" principle reflects the 1 c interests of the caretaker and child. While there is no direct evidence showing that caretaker speech is indeed more effective than unmodified input, the input hypothesis predicts that caretaker speech will be very useful for the child. First, it is, or aims to be, comprehensible. The "here and now" feature provides extra-linguistic support (context) that helps the child understand the utterances containing i + 1. As MacNamara (1972) pointed out, the child does not acquire grammar first and then use it in understanding. The child understands first, and this helps him acquire language. As discussed earlier, roughly-tuned caretaker speech covers the child's i + 1, but does not focus on i + 1 exclusively. Part (3) of the input hypothesis claims that this is optimal. Rough-tuning has the following 2 a in child first language acquisition: (1)It ensures that i + 1 is covered, with no guesswork as to just what i + 1 is for each child. On the other hand, deliberate aim at i + 1 might miss! (2)Roughly-tuned input will provide i + 1 for more than one child at a time, as long as they understand what is said. Finely-tuned input, even if accurate (i.e. even if it "hits" i + 1), will only benefit the child whose i + 1 is exactly the same as what is emphasized in the input. (3) Roughly-tuned input provides built-in review. We need not be 3 c with whether a child has "mastered" a structure, whether the child was paying attention to the input that day, or whether we provided enough. With natural, roughly-tuned input, i + 1 will occur and reoccur. In other words, if part (3) is correct, if it is the case that with enough natural communication and understanding that i + 1 is always provided, the caretaker need not worry about consciously programming structure. This must be a good thing! Adding the responsibility of grammatical sequencing to parenthood would make parent-child communication much less spontaneous and far more difficult. (ii) Evidence from second language acquisition: simple codes. The input hypothesis also holds for second language acquisition. First, as presented earlier, the second language acquirer, child or adult, is also an "acquirer", just like the child acquiring first language. Also, according to hypothesis (2), there is a natural order of acquisition for second language as well as first language, so we can talk about the second language acquirers' i + 1 as well. Third, second language acquirers can also receive the kind of modified input that children get. This modified input is of three sorts. Foreigner-talk 4 r from the modifications native speakers make with less than fully competent speakers of their language (see, for example, Hatch, Shapira, and Gough, 1978 for some good examples). Teacher-talk is foreigner-talk in the classroom, the language of classroom management and explanation, when it is in the second language. A third simple code is interlanguage talk, the speech of other second language acquirers. While there are some differences between these simple codes and caretaker speech (Long, 1980; Freed, 1980), there are important similarities. As is the case with caretaker speech, modifications made in foreigner-talk and teacher-talk are not made for the purpose of language teaching, but are made for the purpose of communication, to help the second language acquirer understand what is being said. Second, the available research indicates that foreigner-talk and teacher-talk are roughly-tuned to the level of the acquirer, and not finely-tuned (Freed, 1980; Gaies, 1977; for a review, see Krashen, 1980); more advanced second language performers tend to get more complex input, but the correlation between proficiency and input complexity is less than perfect. Foreigner-talk and teacher-talk may not always be in the "here and now", but helpful native speakers and teachers find other ways to make input comprehensible. In addition to linguistic alterations, they take advantage of the acquirer's knowledge of the world, which is, of course, greater than that of the child acquiring a first language. Teachers, in addition, use pedagogical aids, such as pictures and realia (see discussion in Chapter III). The input hypothesis predicts that these simplified codes will be very useful for the second language acquirer, just as caretaker speech is posited to be useful for the child. (For some preliminary case history data supporting this hypothesis, see Krashen, 1980, 1981.) The input hypothesis also predicts that natural, communicative, roughly-tuned, comprehensible input has some real advantages over finely-tuned input that aims directly at i + 1, in other words, classroom exercises that aim to teach the structure of the day. The case against the grammatical syllabus is presented in fuller detail in Chapter III, but here is a brief summary. The arguments are very similar to those presented against giving the child finely-tuned input: (1)All students may not be at the same stage. The "structure of the day" may not be i + 1 for many of the students. With natural communicative input, on the other hand, some i + 1 or other will be provided for everyone. (2)With a grammatical syllabus, each structure is presented only once. If a student misses it, is absent, is not paying attention, or if there simply has not been enough practice (input), the student may have to wait until next year, when all structures are reviewed! On the other hand, roughly-tuned comprehensible input allows for natural review. (3)A grammatical syllabus assumes we know the order of acquisition. No such assumption is necessary when we rely on comprehensible input, on roughly-tuned natural communication. (4)Finally, a grammatical syllabus, and the 5 r grammatical focus, places serious constraints on what can be discussed. Too often, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discuss or read anything of real interest if our underlying motive is to practice a particular structure. In other words, a grammatical focus will usually prevent real communication using the second language. If these arguments are correct, they mean that we should not attempt to teach along the natural order, or any other order, when our goal is acquisition. (This is not necessarily true when the goal is conscious learning; see Chapter IV.) ----------------------- 长按此处二维码即可识别并轻松关注“武太白金星人”微信订阅号，接收每日高价值、高格调原创内容推送。
|
|
|
来自： 昵称70926123 > 《待分类》
