THE SIGNIFICANCE OF LEARNERSERRORS
S. P. Corder
When one studies the standard works on the teaching of modern languages it comes as a surprise to find how cursorily the authors deal with the question of learners errors and their correction.It almost seems as if they are dismissed as a matter of no particular importance, as possible annoying, distracting, but inevitable by-products of the process of learning a language about which the teacher should make as little fuss as possible. It is of course true that the application of linguistic and psychological theory to the study of language learning added a new dimension to the discussion of errors ; people now believed they had a principled means for accounting for these errors, namely that they were the result of interference in the learning of a second language from the habits of the first language.The major contribution of the linguist to language teaching was seen as an intensive contrastive study of the systems of the second language and the mother-tongue of the learner; out of this would come an inventory of the areas of difficulty which the learner would encounter and the value of this inventory would be to direct the teachers attention to these areas so that he might devote special care and emphasis in his teaching to the overcoming, or even avoiding, of these predicted difficulties.Teachers have not always been very impressed by this contribution from the linguistfor the reason that their practical experience has usually already shown them where these difficulties lie and they have not felt that the contribution of the linguist has provided them with any significantly new information. They noted for example that many of the errors with what they were familiar were not predicted by the linguist anyway. The teacher has been on the whole, therefore, more concerned with bow to deal with these areas of difficulty than with the simple identification of them, and here has reasonably felt that the linguist has had little to say to him.
In the field of methodology there have beentwo schools of thought in respect of learners errors. Firstly the school which maintains that if we were to achieve a perfect teaching method the errors would never be committed in the first place,and therefore the occurrence of errors is merely a sign of the present inadequacyof our teaching techniques. The philosophy of the second school is that we live in an imperfect world and consequently errors will always occur in spite of our best efforts. Our ingenuity should be concentrated on techniques for dealing with errors after they have occurred.
Both these points of view are compatible with the same theoretical standpoint about language and language learning,psychologically behaviourist and linguistically taxanomic. Their application, to langue teaching is known as the audiolingual or fundamental skills method.
Both linguistics and psychologyare in a state at the present time of what Chomsky has called flux and agitation (Chomsky1966). What seemed to be well established doctrine a few years ago is now the subject of extensive debate. The consequence of this for language teaching is likely to be far reaching and we are perhaps only now beginning to feel its effects.One effect has been perhaps to shift the emphasis away from a preoccupation with teaching towards a study of learning. In the first instance this has shown itself as a renewed attack upon the problem the acquisition of the mother-tongue. This has inevitably led to a consideration of the question whether there are any parallels between the processes of acquiring the mother-tongue and the learning of a second language. The usefulness of the distinction between acquisition and learning has been emphasised by Lambert (1966) and the possibility that the latter may benefit from a study of the former has been suggested by Caroll (1966).
The differences between the two are obvious but not for that reason easy to explain: that the learning of the mother-tongue is inevitable, whereas, alas, we all know that there is no such inevitability about the learning of a second language; that the learning of the mother-tongue is part of the whole maturational process of the child, whilst learning a second language normally begins only after the maturational process is largely complete; that the infant starts with no overt language behaviour, while in the case of the second language learner such behaviour, of course, exists ; that the motivation (if we can properly use the term in the context) for learning a first language is quite different from that for learning a second language.
On examination it becomes clear that these obvious differences imply nothing about the processes that take place in the learning of first and second language. Indeed the most widespread hypothesis about how languages are learned, which I have called behaviourist, is assumed to apply in both circumstances. These hypotheses are well enough known not to require detailing here, and so are the objections to them. If then these hypotheses about language learning are being questioned and new hypotheses being set up to account for the process of child language acquisition, it would seem reasonable to see how far they might also apply to the learning of a second language.
Within this new context the study of errors takes on a new importance and will I believe contribute to a verification or rejection of the new hypothesis.
This hypothesis states that a human infant is born with an innate predisposition to acquire language ; that he mustbe exposed to language for the acquisition process to start; that he possesses an internal mechanism of unknown nature which enable him from the limited data available to him to construct a grammar of a particular language. How he does this is largely unknown and is the field of intensive study at the present time b
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
学习者偏误的重要性
S. P. 科德
当我们研究现代语言教学的“标准作业”时，我们会惊奇地发现，部分学者处理学习者的偏误和校正时显得十分敷衍。这些偏误甚至被学者们视而不见，因为它们尽管让人厌烦、使人分心，但它们似乎并没有那么重要。偏误被看作是语言学习过程中无法避免的副产品，因而老师们没有必要小题大做。诚然，这为应用语言学和心理学对语言学习的研究增加了讨论偏误的一个新维度；现在，人们坚信我们有一个原则性的方式来说明产生这些偏误的原因，即在学习第二语言时，受到第一语言的干扰（迁移），因而出现偏误。对学习者的第二语言和母语系统进行透彻的对比分析被视为语言学家对语言教学的主要贡献。而这也恰好是学习者在习得第二语言时容易产生困难的部分，同时，对比分析的价值在于引导老师关注这些领域，这样他在教学中会特别注意和强调，让学生克服甚至是避免这些可以预测到的困难。事实上，老师们并不总为语言学家的这一贡献所震撼，因为他们的实际教学经验往往会告诉他们这些困难的所在，并且老师们也并不觉得语言学家的这一贡献能提供给他们任何重要的新信息，反而他们很熟悉的一些偏误语言学家并没有做出预测。在教学活动中，老师是主体。因此，他们更加关心如何解决这些困难，而不仅是简单的鉴别它们。因此他们有理由认为语言学家能告诉他们的东西很少。
在方法论领域，对于学习者的偏误有两个不同的流派。第一个流派认为：如果我们拥有一种完美的教学方法，那么偏误根本就不会出现。因此，偏误的出现基本上是现如今教学技能不完善的表现。第二种流派认为：我们本来就生活在一个不完美的世界里，尽管我们尽了最大的努力，偏误总还是会出现。我们的创造力应当集中在解决已出现偏误的技能上。
以上两种观点都属于行为主义心理学者和语言分类学的理论观点。他们学说在语言教学上主要体现为视听法或基本技能法。
目前语言学和心理学都在讨论被乔姆斯基（1966）称为“通量和振荡”的理论。在几年前看似完美的学说如今成为了广泛辩论的主题。这场辩论的结果对于语言教学的影响可能是深远的，并且我们可能才刚意识到它的影响。影响之一在于将关注重点从教学转向于习得。首先这本身就是对母语习得问题的新冲击。这不可避免地导致我们思考学习母语和二语习得在过程中是否存在任何相似之处。兰伯特（1966）已经强调过学习和习得的的有效区分。这可能得益于卡罗尔（1966）先前提出的一项研究。
第一语言和第二语言的习得之间的差异是显而易见的，但是造成这种差异的原因却不易解释：母语的学习是无法避免的，但是第二语言习得却并没有这样的必然性；母语的学习是儿童整个成长过程中的一部分，而二语习得通常仅开始于成长过程大部分完成之后；婴儿开始没有明显的语言行为，然而第二语言习得者起初当然会有（语言行为）；就动机（假使我们全文中都使用这个术语）而言，第一语言和第二语言习得的学习动机存在很大的差异。
这在测试中体现地更加明显，这些明显的差异发生在第一语言学习和第二语言习得的过程中。事实上，关于语言学习最广泛传播的假说，也就是我们所说的行为主义论者，认为行为主义学说适用于这两种情况。这些假说被大家广泛地了解但是其本身并不详细，所以当然会有反对意见。如果这些关于语言学习的假说被质疑，然后新的假说便会建立，试图对儿童语言习得过程作出解释，同时这对了解它们离应用于第二语言习得还有多大距离也是有借鉴意义的。
在这篇文章中，偏误分析将呈现出新的重要性，并且我相信将有助于验证或推翻新的假说。
假说提出，人类婴儿的语言习得是与生俱来的倾向；他肯定沉浸在语言习得开始的过程中；他拥有一种未知的内部机制，这使他可以从他接触的有限的语言数据中建立特定语言的语法结构。他是如何做到的很大程度上是未知的，这也是现如今语言学家和心理学家展开深入研究的领域。米勒（1964）指出：如果我们可以创造一个自动机器去复制孩子的行为表现，它对各种语法项目的测试顺序只能在仔细分析人类儿童语言习得的各个阶段之后才能决定。因此在这样的研究中，第一步应该是纵向描述孩子语言发展的过程。从这样的描述中，最终希望可以开发被儿童语言习得所接受的理论（麦可尼尔1966）。
这个假说应用于第二语言习得并不新鲜，本质上是在五十年前被H.E.帕尔默（1917）提出的。帕尔默认为，我们都被赋予了自然吸收语言的能力，并且在我们学习完一种主要语言时，这种能力依然处于一种潜藏的状态。成年人被视为同孩子一样有能力习得外语。最近的一项研究（洛菲尔德1966）表明，孩子由于某种原因，例如失聪，如果在12岁之前不能习得第一语言，那么之后他将迅速失去语言习得的能力。这项发现并不能暗示具备语言学习能力并且成功习得第一语言的人也会以同样的方式逐渐丧失语言能力。它仍然告诉我们：第二语言习得的过程从根本上是不同于第一语言的学习的。
如果我们假设儿童和成年人具有相同的语言学习机制，那么我们可以假定第二语言习得者采取的程序或策略在本质上也是完全相同的。那么可以区分两种操作的最主要的特点便是学习动机的存在与否。如果第一语言的习得具有实现语言行为开发的倾向，那么第二语言的习得涉及一些更替婴儿学习倾向的其他力量。（这些倾向组成）与本文的研究相关性较低。
因此我们说，鉴于动机，如果一个人被沉浸在语言信息之中，他不可避免地将会开始学习第二语言。学习语言的能力在一定程度上支持这种观点，因为动机和天赋似乎是与第二语言习得成果密切相关的两个主要因素。
因此我暂定一个假说，至少有一些第二语言习得者采取的学习策略在本质上是与第一语言学习需要的策略相同的。这样的假定并不意味课程或习得顺序在两种情况下是相同的。
现在我们再来考虑学习者的偏误。当一个两岁的孩子说出这样一句话“这是妈妈椅子”，我们通常并不认为这是偏离的、不规范的、错误的、或者不准确的。我们根本不觉得这句话存在偏误，反而认为这种孩子气的表达恰好是那一刻他语言能力发展的证据。我们确信这样的语言行为应该在类似教室这样的语言学习环境中被修正。成年人往往会有强烈的重复或扩大孩子话语的倾向，用一个成年人的表达版本，比如“是的，亲爱的，那是妈妈的椅子。”
没有人期望孩子在学习母语的最初阶段只输出在成年人看来正确或非偏离的话语。事实上，我们将儿童那些“不正确”的话语当做他正在进行语言习得的证据，特别是对于那些试图描述他任何一个时间点语言知识发展情况的学者而言，这些所谓的“偏误”提供了重要的线索。正如布朗和弗雷泽所指出的一样，证明孩童掌握了语言建筑规则的最佳证据就是系统性偏误的出现，因为当孩子表述正确的时候，他极有可能只是在复述一些他听到的内容，由于我们并不知道总共的语言输入有多少，所以我们不能排除这种他只是在重复的可能性。这是将语言简化成一个比其本身更简单的系统，而不是让孩子揭示他产生语言规则的倾向。
就第二语言学习者而言，他们可能认为自己确实有一些语言知识的输入，因为这些输入很大程度上是在老师的控制范围之内的。不过在这儿我们介绍一种控制输入的官方文件（当然我们也可以将之称为大纲）。展示教室中的学习者一定的语言学习顺序这一简单的事实并不一定符合真正的输入状态，理由是输入是（学习者）自然习得了什么，而不是有什么可供输入，并且我们有理由认为是学习者在控制输入量，或者更为确切地说是摄入量。这很有可能是由学习者自身的语言习得机制的特性所决定的，而不是那些教学大纲。毕竟，在母语学习的环境中，可接触到的用于输入的语言数据是相对庞大，但是是儿童自主选择可以输入内容。
弗格森（1966）最近指出，我们的教学大纲是在最好的情况下基于印象派的判断以及设计理论原则所创作的，因此完全可以被当作是第二语言习得的基础。对于这个观点，我们在计划新的教学大纲的时候，应当更多地考虑学习者的需求，但是显然并没有导致任何的调查，可能是由于确定学习者真正的需求在方法论上存在很大的困难。卡罗尔（1955）提出这样一个建议，为学习者创建一个解决问题的情境是有价值的，在这种情境中，无论是询问老师或者查字典，他都需要有适合的口头回答去解决问题。他指出这种假说的特性也出现在儿童语言习得的过程之中。
S. P.科德.学习者偏误的重要性[J].《国际应用语言学教学评论》，1967-10，161-170.
剩余内容已隐藏，支付完成后下载完整资料
资料编号：[30181]，资料为PDF文档或Word文档，PDF文档可免费转换为Word
以上是毕业论文外文翻译，课题毕业论文、任务书、文献综述、开题报告、程序设计、图纸设计等资料可联系客服协助查找。
