Input and Acquisition for Second-language Learners In and Out of Classrooms
Input and Acquisition for Second-language Learners In and Out of Classrooms
复制标题
第二语言学习者在课堂内外的输入和习得
DOI：
10.1093/applin/6.3.263
复制
发表时间：
1985
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Lightbown
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Lightbown
Corderin在1967年提出了第二语言习得的假设，即学习者并不只是简单地学习他们被教授的东西，而是以Corder所谓的“内置教学大纲”所决定的方式对输入进行操作。这些研究的对象大多是既接受过正式英语教学又接受过非正式英语教学的学习者，有些人观察到，接受过正式课堂教学但缺乏丰富的第二语言交际环境的学习者会出现错误模式（Felix 1981）和习得顺序（Pica 1983），这是高度相似的学习者接受没有指令或指令，除了'交际'曝光。其他人观察到，没有接触课堂外的学习者表现出的习得顺序（Lightbown 1983a，1983b）和错误模式（Pica 1983）在一定程度上不同于“自然”习得者。总的来说，关于“只学习”的研究数量非常有限。然而，一些作者提出了一个强有力的假设，即教学不会改变发展的路径（Felix 1981，Krashen 1982，Pienemann 1985），但可能会根据教学与学习者中介语发展阶段之间的适当匹配程度来减缓或加快发展速度。对于教学无效的假设，有两种解释。第一，克拉申的假设是，课堂教学的重点是语言形式影响他所谓的“学习”，而不是“习得”。也就是说，在课堂环境中的正式教学期间（注重形式）获得的知识将只作为一个“监视器”，在某些条件下，可能会改变学习者的输出，但不是他或她的潜在中介语系统。正是这个潜在的系统决定了“自发”产生的语言的结构。
Second-language acquisition research over the past fifteen years has provided considerable evidence for the hypothesis proposed by Corderin 1967 that learners of a second language do not simply learn what they are taught, but act on the input in ways determined by what Corder called a'built-in syllabus'. Most of this research has been carried out with learners who have experienced informal exposure to English as well as formal instruction.Learners who have been exposed to formal classroom instruction in the absence of rich'communicative'exposure to the second language (L2) have been observed by some to exhibit error patterns (Felix 1981) and acquisition orders (Pica 1983) which are highly similar to those of learners receiving no instruction or instruction in addition to'communicative'exposure. Others have observed that learners with no exposure outside the classroom exhibit acquisition orders (Lightbown 1983a, 1983b) and error patterns (Pica 1983) which differ to some extent from those of'natural'acquirers. Overall, the amount of research on'instruction-only'learning has been very restricted. Nevertheless, some writers have proposed the strong hypothesis that instruction does not alter the path of development (Felix 1981, Krashen 1982, Pienemann 1985), but may slow or speed the rate of development according to the extent of appropriate matching between instruction and the learner's stage of interlanguage development. Two explanations have been proposed for the hypothesized ineffectiveness of instruction. First, there is Krashen's hypothesis that classroom instruction which is focused on language form affects what he calls' learning'but not'acquisition'. That is, knowledge gained in the formal instruction periods (focus on form) in the classroom setting will be available only as a'monitor'which may, under certain conditions, alter the learner's output but not his or her underlying interlanguage system. It is this underlying system which determines the structure of language produced'spontaneously'.