【作者】 王素丹；

【导师】 周榕；

【作者基本信息】 华南师范大学 ， 英语语言学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 自从20世纪60年代以来，错误分析与错误处理一直成为二语习得及认知领域的研究课题。20世纪80年代以来，随着课堂会话研究的兴起，对教师反馈语的研究成为热门话题。否定反馈(negative feedback)是教师反馈语的一种，与肯定反馈(positive feedback)相对。不少研究者如Gass(1988)；Gass & Varonis(1994)；Lyster(1995)；Oliver(1995，2000)；Pica(1994)；Spada & Lightbown(1993)认为，否定反馈对纠错及语言习得具有促进作用。多年以来，对否定反馈的研究似乎注重于对其效果的讨论。然而，这种效果性研究似乎不太可靠，因为语言学习是一种极其复杂的过程，其中包含许多变量因素。过去对否定反馈的研究也离不开对其进行分类，然而似乎这些分类莫衷一是，有些甚至模棱两可。而且，似乎很少有人对学生错误与否定反馈的关系进行详细的调查分析。据作者所知，目前为止只有Lyster(1995)和Spada & Lightbown(1993)做过这方面的工作。对中外EFL课堂中学生错误和教师否定反馈策略及二者之间的关系的比较研究似乎还不曾见。然而，作者认为，对此研究将具有重要意义：阐述错误与否定反馈语之间的关系有助于促进师生之间相互理解和感知，从而活跃课堂气氛，提高课堂教学效率。而对中外EFL课堂的比较研究将对中国EFL教学起到一定的借鉴作用。基于以上原因，作者认为，本研究论文具有较大的理论价值和实践意义。 本论文纯属描述性，旨在对比分析中外课堂出现的学生错误，教师否定反馈语，及什么样的学生错误倾向于导致什么样的教师否定反馈语。所采用的语料选自华南师大外文学院英语教育语料库，包括30堂中国初中英语教学(JMSCT)和10堂国外初级英语教学(FSCT)。研究过程如下：预备性研究→分类→标签→检索→收集结果→对比研究→原因分析→启示。 调查发现，在这40堂课中，共有487处学生错误及560处教师否定反馈语。通过对比研究得出如下结论：　　　　●学生错误的分布在所划定的6类错误中，中国学生出现最多的是句法错误(占33 .3%)，国外学生出现最多的是理解错误(占32.2%);在中外两类课中，语音和词汇错误所占比例很少，教师否定反馈语策略的分布在所划定的10类教师否定反馈语策略中，投射法(recast)在JMsCT中所占比 「一丫一一」一一一例最大(21.4%)，确认法(confirmation叫uest)其次(l 3.7%);而在FsCT中，直接改正法(explieit eorreetion)使用频率最高(19.3%)，投射法(recast)和引导法(elieitation)其次(15.5%)。不同错误导致的教师否定反饿语策略分布在JMSCT和FSCT中，理解错误主要引起教师的直接改正和引导。句法错误土要引起投射法(J MSCT中占34%，FSCT中占30%)。值得注意的是，相当大部分的句法错误被教师忽略(ignoring.JMsCT中占200，0，FseT中占一60，0)。zMs价中词汇错误主要引起确证法(29%)，然而，FSCT中确证法却不用于反馈词汇错误。FscT中的词汇错误主要引起分解法(decom即sition，26%)。JMseT中的语音错误主要引起分解法(27%)，但FSCT中分解法不用于反馈语音错误。FSCT中的语音错误主要引起确证法(33%)。 本论文试图从二语习得理论和文化的角度分析中外EFL课堂教师否定反馈语策略的异同。研究结果提供以下启示:首先，在当前的中外EFL课堂教学中，真实性和流利性越来越受到重视.第二，中国教师比外国教师在课堂中扮演更权威的角色。第三，通过了解什么样的错误倾向于导致什么样的教师否定反彼语，有助于提高师生之间的相互理解和感知。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since 1980s, with the beginning of the research on discourse and classroom conversation, teacher feedback has become one of the heated topics in discussion. Negative feedback (or corrective feedback) as the opposite of positive feedback was first defined by Gold (1967). Quite a few researchers (Gass 1988; Gass & Varonis 1994; Lyster 1995; Oliver 1995, 2000; Pica 1994; Spada & Lightbown 1993.) contend that negative feedback plays a facilitative role in error correcting and language learning. Most of the previous studies focus on the effectiveness or uptake. However, the studies oneffectiveness seem not so reliable because the process of language learning is so complicated^ and many variables are involved in it. Although the classifications of the negative feedback moves have also been made, it seems that some of them are controversial and ambiguous. It seems that no one studied the relations between errors and teacher’s negative feedback strategies except Lyster (1995) and Spada & Lightbown (1993). Up to now, the author has not found any comparative study on errors and teacher’s negative feedback strategies between Chinese and Non-Chinese classroom settings. While exposing the relations between errors and teacher’s negative feedback strategies may help promote the mutual understandings and perceivings of the teacher and students, and hence activate the classroom atmosphere and improve classroom teaching efficiency, and the comparative study can be of great pedagogical value to the Chinese EFL teaching. Owing to these, it seems to the author quite significant to make the present study.The present study is a descriptive one focuses on the comparison of errors, teacher’s negative feedback strategies and the teacher’s negative feedback strategies in relation toerrors in Chinese and non-Chinese EFL classroom settings. The database includes twosamples : JMSCT (30 periods)and FSCT (10 periods) which are provided by the School ofForeign Studies, South China Normal University. The procedure of the study is as follows: doing the pilot study → coding the error types and teacher’s negative feedback strategics→ tagging the error types, teacher’s negative feedback strategies and the teacher’snegative feedback strategies in relation to errors → forming the concordance of the tagged research data - retrieving the data -*?collecting the statistical findings → doing the comparative studies → analyzing the factors pertaining to the similarities and differences - providing the implications to EFL teaching and summarizing the limitations.Through the investigation of the general results of JMSCT and FSCT, 487 errors and 560 teacher’s negative feedback moves in the two samples are found. Through the comparative study, both the similarities and the differences are found in JMSCT and FSCT. The findings are summarized as follows: Distribution and frequency of errorsAmong the six error types, syntactical error is the most frequently occurred one in JMSCT (33.3%), while in FSCT, the most frequent students’ error is non-understanding (32.2%); the frequencies and distributions of other error types are similar. In both JMSCT and FSCT, the phonological errors are very few, lexical errors are also seldom found. Distribution and frequency of teacher’s negative feedback strategiesAmong the ten teacher’s negative feedback strategies, the largest category in JMSCT is recast (21.4%), while in FSCT, the most frequently used one is explicit correction (19.3%). The second most frequently used teacher’s negative feedback strategy in JMSCT is confirmation request (13.7%), while the second most frequently used teacher’s negative feedback strategy in FSCT is Recast and elicitation (15.5%). Distribution and frequency of teacher’s negative feedback strategies in relation to error typesThe most frequently used negative feedback strategies in relation to non-understanding in both JMSCT and FSCT are explicit correction and elicitation. In both JMSCT and FSCT, syntactical errors lead to recast most fr更多还原