【作者】 赵永平；

【导师】 俞婷；

【作者基本信息】 西北师范大学 ， 课程与教学论， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 形式和意义历来是语言教学争论的焦点。传统的语法翻译法只注重语言形式,而强势交际教学法(如浸入法)则只注重语言意义。有大量的研究和教学实践表明,单一地以形式或意义为纲是有失偏颇的,应该寻求二者的融合。Long, Long & Robinson, Doughty & Williams, Ellis, Spada等人提出并倡导“意义形式兼顾(FonF)”的教学理念便体现了形式和意义的结合。“意义形式兼顾”是和“只注重语言形式”、“只注重语言意义”相对应的,是在把学生的主要注意力集中在意义或交际的前提下,在必要时偶然、临时地引导学生聚焦于语言形式。在第二语言教学环境中更多的是如何从“只注重语言意义”向“意义形式兼顾”发展,而在外语教学环境中,比如中国,更多的是如何从“只注重语言形式”向“意义形式兼顾”发展。但无论如何,“意义形式兼顾”提供了二/外语教学的合理的理论阐释,代表了二/外语教学的趋势,并有大量的理论和实证研究表明“意义形式兼顾”广泛并有效地应用于二语/外语教学。本研究在“意义形式兼顾”的框架下,探索“意义形式兼顾”在我国外语环境下的实现方式。具体来说,本论文研究输入强化(作为前摄的“意义形式兼顾”和正面证据)和纠错反馈(作为反应的“意义形式兼顾”和负面证据)对英语作为外语的中国中学生习得英语被动语态的影响。论文有三个研究问题:1)输入强化对习得外语语言形式(本论文中为过去时态的被动语态)有什么影响?2)纠错反馈对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?3)输入强化和纠错反馈结合在一起对习得外语语言形式有什么影响?本研究采用前测-后测-延迟后测的实验设计,以甘肃陇西碧岩中学四个完整班的147个初三学生为被试,采用理解强化任务、重述任务、整体听写任务和诱导产出任务为实验材料,用语法判断、限制性结构产出和自由写作为测量工具,研究学生对过去时被动语态的习得。根据需要,本研究选择四个初三班级作为被试,分为四个组:输入强化组、纠错反馈组、输入强化+纠错反馈组、控制组,提出三个研究假设:1)与控制组相比,输入强化组更能帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;2)与控制组和输入强化组相比,纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态;3)与单独的输入强化组和纠错反馈组相比,输入强化+纠错反馈组更有助于帮助学生习得过去时的被动语态。研究结果支持了所有的三个研究假设,表明输入强化和纠错反馈都有助于学生习得语言形式,但纠错反馈比输入强化效果更好,而两者的结合使用比单个使用更有益。通过该研究进一步表明,作为正面证据的输入强化本身并不能保证学生习得语言形式,作为负面证据的纠错反馈是必需的。基于该实证研究,本文倡导在我国外语教学中实施体现FonF理念的教学。在实际教学中,教师可以用前摄的FonF的手段(比如输入强化)提前对那些较难的语言形式做些必要的有助于促进学生习得的准备,而在教学过程中教师要善于运用各种反应的FonF的手段,给学生提供各种纠错反馈.此外,FonF的教学理念可以理想地融合到任务型教学中,因此,教师应该设法将教学整合到各种任务当中,尤其是能够促进学生注意和练习目的形式的任务,比如结构性输出任务、理解性任务和协作产出任务.更多还原

【Abstract】 There is always a dispute between form and meaning in language teaching. Traditional grammar-based syllabus exclusively focuses on language forms, while strong version of communicative-based teaching (e.g. immersion programme) solely focalizes on meaning. Substantive studies and teaching practice indicate that focusing on language forms or meaning alone is insufficient; instead, we should seek the integration of the forms and meaning. Such integration has emerged in what Long, Robinson, Doughty, Williams, Ellis, Spada, etc. refer to as‘Focus on Form (FonF)’, contrasting with‘Focus on Forms’and‘Focus on Meaning’. FonF intends to draws students’attention overtly to linguistic forms as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication. In English as second language (ESL) teaching context, there is a need for change from‘focus on meaning’to FonF, whereas in English as foreign language (EFL) context, such as in China, there is a need for change from‘Focus on Forms’to FonF. Anyhow, FonF can provide an acceptable rationale for second/foreign language teaching and represents the trend of second/foreign language instruction. In addition, numerous theoretical and pedagogical studies show that FonF are used widely and efficiently in second/foreign language teaching.Within the framework of FonF, the present study intends to investigate the specific means to implement such teaching approach for Chinese learners of English in EFL context. Specifically, it attempts to explore the effect of input enhancement (IE) (as positive evidence and planned FonF) and corrective feedback (CF) (as negative evidence and reactive FonF) on acquisition of passive voice by Chinese EFL learners in middle school. There are three research questions in the present study: i) what is the effect of input enhancement on acquisition of foreign language forms (passive voice of simple past tense in the present study)? ii) What is the effect of corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form? iii) What is the effect of input enhancement together with corrective feedback on acquisition of the target form?The present study employs a pretest - immediate posttest - delayed posttest experimental design, and the participants are 147 students of four intact classes in grade three in Biyan Junior Middle School, at Longxi, Gansu. The treatment consists of four tasks: a comprehension and enhancement task, a retelling task, a dictogloss task and an elicited production task, and the test instruments include metalinguistic judgment responses, free responses and constrained constructed responses. The participants of four intact classes are assigned to four groups, a control class (CC), an input enhancement group (IE group), a corrective feedback group (CF group), and an input enhancement + corrective feedback group (IE + CF group). Correspondingly, there are three hypotheses in the present study: i) participants who receive IE will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than CC group, ii) participants who receive CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE, and iii) participants who receive IE + CF will perform better on the tests of acquiring passive voice of the simple past tense than those who receive IE or CF alone.The results of the study support all the three hypotheses, showing that input enhancement and corrective feedback redound to students’acquiring the target form meanwhile corrective feedback is more efficient; yet, the combination of the two is more beneficial than the one alone. The study further confirms that input enhancement as positive evidence is necessary but not sufficient to guarantee the learners’acquisition of the target form, and corrective feedback as negative evidence is obligatory.Based on the present study, this thesis advocates for FonF teaching approach. On the specific operational level, teachers can make necessary facilitating preparation for certain difficult language forms in advance using planned FonF devices, such as input enhancement. Furthermore, teachers should employ various reactive FonF devices and provide diverse corrective feedbacks. In addition, such FonF instruction can be ideally incorporated into task-based language teaching, and the teachers should integrate FonF instruction into various tasks, especially the ones that can promote learners’awareness and practice of target forms, such as structure-based production task, comprehension task and collaborative production task.更多还原