重述和引导对中国不同水平英语学习者学习冠词效果的对比性研究
|
摘要
20世纪70年代末,课堂互动成为二语习得研究领域颇为关注的一个方面。作为课堂互动中的极其重要的一部分,纠正性反馈,尤其是重述和引导这两种不同类型的反馈方式,引起越来越多研究者的兴趣。然而,由于受诸多因素的影响,无论是理论研究还是实证研究,关于重述和引导这两种反馈方式对二语习得效果的结论还存在分歧。近年来,研究者们开始关注各种内在因素(如学习者语言水平,记忆容量等)对反馈习得效果的制约作用,研究也趋向细化,但仍存在若干不足。
本研究以注意假设和互动假说为理论框架,结合学习者语言水平因素,研究重述和引导这两种不同类型的纠正性反馈对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的影响。具体研究问题如下:
(1)重述和引导这两种不同类型的反馈方式对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果是否有显著差异?如果有显著差异,那么
(2)上述差异是否是受学习者自身英语水平的影响?
本研究采用前测-后测设计。来自湖北一所高中的三个高一班共72名学生参加了本实验,并按自然班随机分成三组,即重述组,引导组和控制组。每组根据中考英语成绩又划分为高分组和低分组。在为期四周的实验中:第一周,三组分别参加了前测(看图写作和冠词改错);第二周,在2次任务型的师生互动中,重述组和引导组既参与任务又分别接受重述和引导这两种不同形式的反馈,控制组参与任务却不接受任何纠正性反馈,任务完成后三组参加了即时后测;第四周,三组又分别参加了延时后测。
实验结果表明:(1)引导对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果明显高于重述。在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测中,引导组的优越性并不明显,但在延时后测中引导组显著高于重述组;(2)引导与重述的显著差异受到学习者自身英语水平的影响,即重述和引导对高分组的学习者效果都很显著,而引导对低分组的学习者效果比重述更显著。具体地说,重述高分组和引导高分组在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测和延时后测中无显著差异,但引导低分组在看图写作和冠词改错即时后测和延时后测中显著高于重述低分组。
本实验研究结果与Ammar和Spada (2006)的研究结果基本一致。根据注意假设,学习者注意到的越多学到的越多。在本实验的课堂互动中,重述组的学习者容易忽略重述这种隐性反馈方式,而引导组的学习者可以更容易的注意到引导这种显性的反馈方式,因而,引导明显优于重述。本研究结果还进一步证实了互动假说中习得受学习者自身水平制约这一理论。因此,教师在课堂互动中应针对不同水平英语学习者采用适当的反馈方式。
Classroom interaction has been the center of interest in the field of second language acquisition since the end of 1970s. Corrective feedback especially recasts and prompts, as the very important part in the classroom interaction, has aroused many researchers’attention. However, due to various factors, the results of both the theoretical and empirical studies on the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts are in inconsistence. In recent years, researchers have started to investigate how learner-internal factors (like learner’s proficiency level, memory capacity, etc.) mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback. With more studies have been done on the learner-internal mediating factors of corrective feedback, there are still gaps in this research scope.
Based on Schmidt (1990)’s Noticing Hypothesis and Long (1996)’s Interaction Hypothesis, this study investigated the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners and explored the effect of one possible moderating factor—learners’language proficiency. Two research questions were addressed in the study:
1. Do recasts and prompts have differential effects on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners? If yes,
2. Are the differential effects of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles by Chinese EFL learners moderated by learners’language proficiency?
The present study employed a pretest and posttests design. Three intact classes, including 72 Grade 10 high-school students from a high school of Hubei Province, involved in the study. The three intact classes were assigned to three conditions randomly: a recast group, a prompt group and a control group. Each group was further divided into a high-proficiency subgroup and a low–proficiency subgroup according to the student’s English score in the high school entrance exam. The experiment of this study took over 4 weeks. In the first week, the pretest was conducted on the three groups respectively, including a writing test and an error correction test. In the second week, the three participating groups received two task-based treatment sessions. During the treatment sessions, the recast group did the two narrative tasks and received recasts; the prompt group did the two narrative tasks and received prompts; and the control group did the two narrative tasks but did not receive any corrective feedback. Then, the immediate posttest was conducted immediately after the treatment. In the fourth week, the delayed posttest was conducted on the three groups.
On the basis of data analyses, two major findings were presented as follows: (1) overall prompts were more effective than recasts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners. Specifically, both on the writing test and the error correction test, the prompt group didn’t significantly outperform the recast group on the immediate posttest; however, the prompt group significantly outperformed the recast group on the delayed posttest. (2) The differential effects of prompts and recasts were related to the learners’language proficiency. Specifically, prompts and recasts were equally effective for the high-proficiency participants both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests; however, prompts were significantly more effective than recasts for the low-proficiency learners both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests.
The findings of this study were in line with that of Ammar and Spada (2006). This study provided certain support for the Noticing Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The first finding of the study suggested that participants in the recast group may not perceive recasts (implicit feedback), whereas participants in the prompt group were more possible to notice prompts (operated as explicit feedback in the study). As proposed by the Noticing Hypothesis, learner who notices more learns more, so prompts were more effective than recasts in the learning of target structure. Moreover, the second finding confirmed the Interaction Hypothesis that acquisition was mediated by the learner’s proficiency. Therefore, learners’proficiency level should be taken into consideration when providing corrective feedback during the classroom interaction.
本研究以注意假设和互动假说为理论框架,结合学习者语言水平因素,研究重述和引导这两种不同类型的纠正性反馈对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的影响。具体研究问题如下:
(1)重述和引导这两种不同类型的反馈方式对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果是否有显著差异?如果有显著差异,那么
(2)上述差异是否是受学习者自身英语水平的影响?
本研究采用前测-后测设计。来自湖北一所高中的三个高一班共72名学生参加了本实验,并按自然班随机分成三组,即重述组,引导组和控制组。每组根据中考英语成绩又划分为高分组和低分组。在为期四周的实验中:第一周,三组分别参加了前测(看图写作和冠词改错);第二周,在2次任务型的师生互动中,重述组和引导组既参与任务又分别接受重述和引导这两种不同形式的反馈,控制组参与任务却不接受任何纠正性反馈,任务完成后三组参加了即时后测;第四周,三组又分别参加了延时后测。
实验结果表明:(1)引导对中国英语学习者学习不定冠词“a”(第一次提到的人或事物)和定冠词“the”(复述上文提过的人或事物)的效果明显高于重述。在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测中,引导组的优越性并不明显,但在延时后测中引导组显著高于重述组;(2)引导与重述的显著差异受到学习者自身英语水平的影响,即重述和引导对高分组的学习者效果都很显著,而引导对低分组的学习者效果比重述更显著。具体地说,重述高分组和引导高分组在看图写作和冠词改错的即时后测和延时后测中无显著差异,但引导低分组在看图写作和冠词改错即时后测和延时后测中显著高于重述低分组。
本实验研究结果与Ammar和Spada (2006)的研究结果基本一致。根据注意假设,学习者注意到的越多学到的越多。在本实验的课堂互动中,重述组的学习者容易忽略重述这种隐性反馈方式,而引导组的学习者可以更容易的注意到引导这种显性的反馈方式,因而,引导明显优于重述。本研究结果还进一步证实了互动假说中习得受学习者自身水平制约这一理论。因此,教师在课堂互动中应针对不同水平英语学习者采用适当的反馈方式。
Classroom interaction has been the center of interest in the field of second language acquisition since the end of 1970s. Corrective feedback especially recasts and prompts, as the very important part in the classroom interaction, has aroused many researchers’attention. However, due to various factors, the results of both the theoretical and empirical studies on the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts are in inconsistence. In recent years, researchers have started to investigate how learner-internal factors (like learner’s proficiency level, memory capacity, etc.) mediate the effectiveness of corrective feedback. With more studies have been done on the learner-internal mediating factors of corrective feedback, there are still gaps in this research scope.
Based on Schmidt (1990)’s Noticing Hypothesis and Long (1996)’s Interaction Hypothesis, this study investigated the relative efficacy of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners and explored the effect of one possible moderating factor—learners’language proficiency. Two research questions were addressed in the study:
1. Do recasts and prompts have differential effects on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners? If yes,
2. Are the differential effects of recasts and prompts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles by Chinese EFL learners moderated by learners’language proficiency?
The present study employed a pretest and posttests design. Three intact classes, including 72 Grade 10 high-school students from a high school of Hubei Province, involved in the study. The three intact classes were assigned to three conditions randomly: a recast group, a prompt group and a control group. Each group was further divided into a high-proficiency subgroup and a low–proficiency subgroup according to the student’s English score in the high school entrance exam. The experiment of this study took over 4 weeks. In the first week, the pretest was conducted on the three groups respectively, including a writing test and an error correction test. In the second week, the three participating groups received two task-based treatment sessions. During the treatment sessions, the recast group did the two narrative tasks and received recasts; the prompt group did the two narrative tasks and received prompts; and the control group did the two narrative tasks but did not receive any corrective feedback. Then, the immediate posttest was conducted immediately after the treatment. In the fourth week, the delayed posttest was conducted on the three groups.
On the basis of data analyses, two major findings were presented as follows: (1) overall prompts were more effective than recasts on the learning of two of the functions of English articles (i.e., the use of“a”as first mention and the use of“the”as anaphoric reference) by Chinese EFL learners. Specifically, both on the writing test and the error correction test, the prompt group didn’t significantly outperform the recast group on the immediate posttest; however, the prompt group significantly outperformed the recast group on the delayed posttest. (2) The differential effects of prompts and recasts were related to the learners’language proficiency. Specifically, prompts and recasts were equally effective for the high-proficiency participants both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests; however, prompts were significantly more effective than recasts for the low-proficiency learners both on the writing posttests and error correction posttests.
The findings of this study were in line with that of Ammar and Spada (2006). This study provided certain support for the Noticing Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The first finding of the study suggested that participants in the recast group may not perceive recasts (implicit feedback), whereas participants in the prompt group were more possible to notice prompts (operated as explicit feedback in the study). As proposed by the Noticing Hypothesis, learner who notices more learns more, so prompts were more effective than recasts in the learning of target structure. Moreover, the second finding confirmed the Interaction Hypothesis that acquisition was mediated by the learner’s proficiency. Therefore, learners’proficiency level should be taken into consideration when providing corrective feedback during the classroom interaction.
引文
[1] Ammar, A. (2008). Prompts and recasts: Differential effects on second language morphosyntax. Language Teaching Research, 12, 183-210.Halliday, M.A.K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[2] Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
[3] Berry, R. (2000). Collins Cobuild English Guides: 2. Articles. Editor-in-chief: John Sinclair. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press Ltd.
[4] Braidi, S. M. (2002).Reexaming the role of recasts in native-speaker/ nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
[5] Butler,Y. (2002). Second language learners’theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451-480.
[6] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning on linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209-236.
[7] Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.
[9] Doughty, C., & J. Williams. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Dulay, H. M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
[11] Ellis, N. (1994a). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 1-31). New York: Academic Press.
[12] Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc.
[13] Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit CF and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
[15] Ellis, R., & Scheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
[16] Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[17] Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[18] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[19] Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 542-572.
[20] Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267-287.
[21] Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
[22] Lee, J., & D. Schallert. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-736.
[23] Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
[24] Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How language are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[25] Lipski, J. M. (1978). On the use of the indefinite article. Hispania, 61, 105-109.
[26] Liu, D., & Gleason, J. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 1-26.
[27] Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
[28] Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[29] Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Lowen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-555.
[31] Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
[32] Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
[33] Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237-253.
[34] Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
[35] Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[36] Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453-498.
[37] Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbanance in immersion pedagogy. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to bilingualism and multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 131-151). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
[38] Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Correct feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
[39] Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
[40] Martinez, F. (2003). Exploring figurative language proficiency in bilinguals: the metaphor interference effect. Thesis submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A & M University.
[41]McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
[42] Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on from through interaction enhancement: Intergrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Languge Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
[43] Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
[44] Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explictness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
[45] Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on“noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
[46] Robinson, P. (1995a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second language Acquisition (pp. 631-678). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
[47] Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
[48] Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
[49] Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role ofattention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
[50] Schmidt, R. M. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[51] Schmidt, R. M., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[52] Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
[53] Sheen, Y. (2008). Recast, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835-874.
[54] Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[55] Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
[56] Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[57] Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-307.
[58] Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 80-94.
[59]戴曼纯,王湘玲(1997),误差分析:问题与思考,《外语界》第3期:11-16。
[60]戴炜栋(1990),误差起因分析综述,《外语界第》第2期:1-6。
[61]戴炜栋,牛强(1999),过度语的石化现象及其教学启示,《外语研究》第2期:10-15。
[62]戴炜栋,束定芳(1994),对比分析,错误分析和中介语研究的若干问题—外语教学理论研究,《外国语》第4期:1-7。
[63]马广惠(2004),《影响二语写作的语言因素》,河海大学出版社。
[64]向朝红(1999),监察学习理论及其对口语错误纠正的启示,《外语与外语教学》第7期:23-24。
[65]张涓(2004),英语课堂教学中的错误纠正,《华中农业大学学报》(社会科学版)第1期: 94-96。
[2] Ammar, A., & Spada, N. (2006). One size fits all? Recasts, prompts, and L2 learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 543-574.
[3] Berry, R. (2000). Collins Cobuild English Guides: 2. Articles. Editor-in-chief: John Sinclair. Hong Kong: The Commercial Press Ltd.
[4] Braidi, S. M. (2002).Reexaming the role of recasts in native-speaker/ nonnative-speaker interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
[5] Butler,Y. (2002). Second language learners’theories on the use of English articles. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(3), 451-480.
[6] Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning on linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 209-236.
[7] Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8] Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second language proficiency. Language Learning, 39, 81-141.
[9] Doughty, C., & J. Williams. (1998). Issues and terminology. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 1-12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[10] Dulay, H. M., & Krashen, S. D. (1982). Language two. New York: Oxford University Press.
[11] Ellis, N. (1994a). Implicit and explicit language learning: An overview. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of language (pp. 1-31). New York: Academic Press.
[12] Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc.
[13] Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[14] Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and Explicit CF and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
[15] Ellis, R., & Scheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in L2 acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
[16] Gass, S. (1997). Input, Interaction, and the Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[17] Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An introductory Course. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
[18] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[19] Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2 output. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 542-572.
[20] Iwashita, N. (2001). The effect of learner proficiency on interactional moves and modified output in nonnative-nonnative interaction in Japanese as a foreign language. System, 29, 267-287.
[21] Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. London: Longman.
[22] Lee, J., & D. Schallert. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: a test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 713-736.
[23] Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
[24] Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How language are learned. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[25] Lipski, J. M. (1978). On the use of the indefinite article. Hispania, 61, 105-109.
[26] Liu, D., & Gleason, J. (2002). Acquisition of the article the by nonnative speakers of English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(1), 1-26.
[27] Long, M. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). San Diego: Academic Press.
[28] Long, M. (2006). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
[29] Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: theory, research and practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Lowen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-555.
[31] Lyster, R. (1998a). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
[32] Lyster, R. (1998b). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
[33] Lyster, R. (2002). Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 237-253.
[34] Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction. Studies in Second Language Language Acquisition, 26, 399-432.
[35] Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content: A counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
[36] Lyster, R., & Izquierdo, J. (2009). Prompts versus recasts in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 59, 453-498.
[37] Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbanance in immersion pedagogy. In T. Fortune & D. Tedick (Eds.), Pathways to bilingualism and multilingualism: Evolving perspectives on immersion education (pp. 131-151). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
[38] Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Correct feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
[39] Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development: Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338–356.
[40] Martinez, F. (2003). Exploring figurative language proficiency in bilinguals: the metaphor interference effect. Thesis submitted to the Office of Graduate Studies of Texas A & M University.
[41]McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Responses to recasts: repetitions, primed production, and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
[42] Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on from through interaction enhancement: Intergrating formal instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Languge Learning, 50(4), 617-673.
[43] Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and reformulation and their relationship with learner repair in dyadic interaction. Language Learning, 57, 511-548.
[44] Nassaji, H. (2009). Effects of recasts and elicitations in dyadic interaction and the role of feedback explictness. Language Learning, 59, 411-452.
[45] Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on“noticing the gap”: Nonnative speakers’noticing of recasts in NS-NNS interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-126.
[46] Robinson, P. (1995a). Attention and memory during SLA. In C. Doughty & M. Long (Eds.), Handbook of Second language Acquisition (pp. 631-678). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
[47] Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
[48] Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
[49] Schmidt, R. W. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role ofattention and awareness in learning. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and Awareness in Foreign Language Learning (pp. 1-63). Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
[50] Schmidt, R. M. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and Second Language Instruction (pp. 3-32). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[51] Schmidt, R. M., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in second language: A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to Learn: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
[52] Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner uptake. Language Teaching Research, 10, 361-392.
[53] Sheen, Y. (2008). Recast, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58, 835-874.
[54] Stern, H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[55] Tomlin, R. S., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in Cognitive Science and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 183-203.
[56] Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts? The role of attention, memory, and analytical ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp. 171-196). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[57] Wagner-Gough, J., & Hatch, E. (1975). The importance of input data in second language acquisition studies. Language Learning, 25, 297-307.
[58] Yamashita, J. (2002). Mutual compensation between L1 reading ability and L2 proficiency in L2 reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 25, 80-94.
[59]戴曼纯,王湘玲(1997),误差分析:问题与思考,《外语界》第3期:11-16。
[60]戴炜栋(1990),误差起因分析综述,《外语界第》第2期:1-6。
[61]戴炜栋,牛强(1999),过度语的石化现象及其教学启示,《外语研究》第2期:10-15。
[62]戴炜栋,束定芳(1994),对比分析,错误分析和中介语研究的若干问题—外语教学理论研究,《外国语》第4期:1-7。
[63]马广惠(2004),《影响二语写作的语言因素》,河海大学出版社。
[64]向朝红(1999),监察学习理论及其对口语错误纠正的启示,《外语与外语教学》第7期:23-24。
[65]张涓(2004),英语课堂教学中的错误纠正,《华中农业大学学报》(社会科学版)第1期: 94-96。
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |