元语言意识

An Examination of the Relationship between Metalinguistic Awareness and Second-language Proficiency of Adult Learners of French

Janet Renou

ESADE-Escuela de Idiomas, 92-96 Esplugues Ave, Barcelona, Spain

This paper presents the results of a quantitative study investigating the relationship between metalinguistic awareness(MLA)and second-language proficiency(L2)of64 universitylevel learnersof French.The theoreticalframework driving this study posits that linguistic and metalinguistic proficiency are composed of two components–‘ana-lysed knowledge’and‘control’over that knowledge(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a). Learners’performances on two grammaticality judgement tests and on a test of L2 proficiency were examined in the context of the demands made upon these two compo-nents and according to whether the learners had been exposed to a communicative or grammar approach to L2learning.Significant differences were found in learners’performance depending upon task demands.Results showed a positive relationship between scores on the judgement tests,the operationalisation of MLA,and the test of L2proficiencyfor the entire sample.However,once learnerswere grouped according to learning approaches,there was no longer a positive relationship for the communicative group.

Introduction

Metalinguistic awareness(MLA)is broadly defined here as conscious knowl-edge of the formal aspects of the target language(e.g.grammar).This paper reports an investigation of the metalinguistic abilities of university level French second-language learners.In particular,it reports on the use of grammaticality judgements as a measure of metalinguistic awareness,and explores the relation-ship between learners’ MLA and second-language (L2) proficiency.

Interest in metalinguistic awareness stems from an increasing consensus among educators and researchers(Alderson&Steel,1994;Germain&Seguin, 1995;Hammerly,1991;Larsen-Freeman,1995)that a number of L2learners lack linguistic accuracy in performance,and research in MLA examines the relation-ship between MLA and learner competence in the Chomskian sense of the word (Alderson et al., 1996; Gass, 1983, 1994).

Since the arrival of the communicative approach to teaching and learning a second language in the late1970s,a greater number of learners have been exposed to communicative activities considered to promote fluency,and where the emphasis is on meaning as opposed to form or grammar(Alderson&Steel, 1994;Germain&Seguin,1995;Hammerly,1991;Masny,1987;Mitchell& Hooper,1991).One of the prevalent theories lending support to de-emphasising grammar claims that providing comprehensible input,which is language that is within the learners’grasp of comprehension,is the only prerequisite for acquisi-tion of a second or foreign language(Krashen,1981).Such a view coincides with 0965-8416/01/04 0248-20 $20.00/0? 2001 J. Renou LANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 10, No. 4, 2001

248

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency249 the general consensus that we learn our mother tongue without any emphasis being placed on an awareness or knowledge about grammar.However,in L2 learning,research has since shown that when second-language learners’atten-tion is focused mainly on meaning,without any attention being paid to gram-mar,linguistic accuracy suffers(Alderson&Steel,1994;Harley&Swain,1984; Lightbown&Halter,1993;Lyster,1987).Research which focuses on the role of formal instruction(DeKeyser,1995;Ellis,1993;Harley,1989;Long,1991;Robin-son,1996;Terrell,1991;White,1991)provides support for the growing concern of second-language educators and researchers about linguistic accuracy.

Germain and Seguin(1995)claim that knowledge about grammar is impor-tant for the following reasons:(1)for students to succeed in various language tests based on explicit knowledge about the language(e.g.placement exams for second-language schools),knowledge of grammar is essential;(2)grammatical awareness enhances learners’comprehension because it can provide informa-tion that is helpful for deciphering input;and(3)in some cases,knowledge about the language enhances learner motivation and reduces stress related to L2learn-ing.Swain and Lapkin(1995)further state that grammatical analysis is essential to accurate production.Learners who lack explicit grammar knowledge will have difficulty understanding the structure of a language(e.g.sentences follow subject,verb,object order)and following discussions where linguistic terminol-ogy is used to render the grammar of the target language explicit(Bloor,1986). These two problems may affect students’desire to continue their L2studies,as well as their development in learning a L2,and their level of achievement in language courses.

Some second-language research suggests that metalinguistic awareness is a reflection of developing second-language competence(Arthur,1980;Gass,1983, 1994;Masny,1991).MLA is often measured through learners’grammaticality judgements and particularly those which require error correction and justifica-tion(Alderson&Steel,1994;Alderson et al.,1996;Ellis,1991;Gass,1983,1994; Masny,1991).Judgement tasks are also frequently used–though not without debate–as a means of measuring learners’internalised knowledge(Coppieters, 1987;Masny&d’Anglejan,1985;Schachter,1989).The scope of this paper does not permit us to elaborate in an in-depth manner on the debate concerning the validity and reliability of grammatical judgement tests as a measure of compe-tence(see Ellis,1991;Gass,1994;Leow1996).Kellerman(1986)and Sharwood Smith(1988)claim that learners’ability to judge sentences as grammatically correct or not is a relatively direct window into competence.Sorace(1985) showed that increases in learner judgement ability were proportional to improvement in L2proficiency,the observable manifestation of competence.In a similar vein,Leow’s(1996)study provides support for the view that learners’ability to judge grammaticality reflects their L2development.On the other hand,studies conducted by Alderson and Steel(1994)and Alderson et al. (1996)failed to show a statistically positive relationship between MLA and L2 proficiency.In a similar vein,studies carried out by Liceras(1983)and Ellis and Rathbone(1987)showed inconsistencies in the relationship between judgement tasks and learners’ production.

Bialystok(1982)contends that research will continue to provide conflicting results until descriptions of MLA and L2proficiency are made in the light of what

250Language Awareness L2learners are being asked to do;that is in consideration of underlying task demands.In the present study,the relationship between MLA and L2profi-ciency was examined according to the demands made on two cognitive process-ing components–analysed knowledge and control of linguistic processing (control).

The Bialystok and Ryan (1985a) information-processing model The Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model offers a theoretical framework for examining the relationship between MLA and L2proficiency.It posits that successfully meeting task demands,(e.g.conversation,literacy or metalinguistic tasks)is influenced by the development of analysed knowledge and control. Analysed knowledge and control over that knowledge are each considered to develop along continuous and orthogonal dimensions to one another.Each axis in Figure1,adopted from Bialystok and Ryan(1985a),represents a continuum and marks increments in demands placed upon the processing components. Analysed knowledge can be defined as conscious knowledge as opposed to knowing that is intuitive(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).The control component can be defined in terms of three functions for which it is responsible:(1)the selection of items of knowledge or information;(2)the co-ordinationof these items;and(3) the extent to which selection and co-ordination can be carried out automatically. Because analysed knowledge and control are responsible for changes in mental

Source:Bialystok and Ryan, 1985a. Reprinted with permission

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency251 representations which are the basis of learning,the functioning of these processes leads to learning (Bialystok, 1994).

The theoretical notion of orthogonal dimensions serves to separate L2learn-ers’analysed knowledge of aspects of the language from their control over knowledge.According to Bialystok(1990),the two components are to an extent independent in that each is responsible for a different aspect of processing;yet neither one alone is sufficient for language processing.Analysed knowledge is required for accuracy,and control is required for fluency(Bialystok,1990,1994). It is possible that one could advance along one of the dimensions but not neces-sarily as much along the other or not at the same rate.In this sense,the develop-ment of each component is to a certain extent governed by different factors(e.g. learning approaches),and could result in learners having more analysed knowl-edge than control over that knowledge or vice versa;thus an individual could speak fluently but inaccurately or vice versa.Bialystok and Ryan(1985c)state that completing tasks usually requires that analysis and control be applied in an ordered fashion–analysis of knowledge preceding control.In this sense,the extent of analysed knowledge imposes a basic limitation on the range of control that is possible.

No studies have been located where the metalinguistic abilities of adults from different learning approaches have been examined in relation to the two process-ing components.Therefore,in the present study,one of our goals was to analyse the judgement ability of learners from communicative and grammar approaches according to the demands that these judgement tasks placed on analysed knowl-edge and control.

Metalinguistic tasks

Different uses of language for different purposes require different levels of analysed knowledge and control.Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)claim that tasks can therefore be classified according to whether they require low or high levels of these components.As shown in Figure1,the model posits that conversation tasks,reading and writing tasks,and metalinguistic tasks,make increasing demands on one or both components.In every-day conversation which is contextualised,demands are low on analysis and on control because attention is focused on meanings and little control or manipulation of the forms is required (Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).Ricciardelli’s(1993)study,which carried out a detailed factor analysis involving eight metalinguistic tasks,provides support for the construct validity of the two processing components.In a similar vein, Cromdal’s(1999)study generally shows support for Bialystok and Ryan’s dual component model,with the strongest findings related to the controlcomponent.

In the case of grammaticality judgement,simply deciding whether a sentence is grammaticalor not does not reflect analysed knowledge because it can be done without MLA,that is without being aware of the basis of judgement(Bialystok, 1991;Reber,1976).More demanding tasks,such as those that require correction and justification of correction,require learners to access and elaborate upon their linguistic knowledge which is a reflection of metalinguistic awareness(Bialystok &Ryan,1985a;Gass,1983;Sorace,1985).Grammaticalityjudgement tasks which make greater demands on analysed knowledge are those in which learners must perform the three steps of detecting,correcting and explaining the detected

252Language Awareness errors(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a,1985b;Bialystok1994).Tasks which require paying attention to some aspect of input which may not be salient,usual or expected make high demands on control because they involve selecting where to focus one’s attention(Bialystok,1992).For example,in situations where language is presented outside the context to which it refers,either orally or writ-ten,demands are higher on control.Since meaning is usually the salient aspect of an orally presented linguistic message,focusing on the form of the message,as in the oral judgement task,is an example of task which requires greater control. Furthermore,the grammaticality judgement task when presented orally also makes high demands on control because of having to produce an automatic response(Bialystok,1982).Leow(1996)claims that the role of modality in grammaticality judgement tasks should be taken into consideration when exam-ining the relationship between judgement ability and performance on produc-tion tasks.Murphy(1997)also found significant differences in modality where subjects were doing a grammaticality judgement task.

To my knowledge,no work has been carried out where the same learners are required to perform the three steps of the grammaticality judgement task in both a written and oral mode of presentation of items.This,then is the aim of the pres-ent study.

Study

This study addresses the following research questions:

(1)What is the relationship between advanced-level French L2learners’

metalinguistic awareness and L2 proficiency?

(2)What is the relationship between MLA and L2proficiency when learners

have been exposed to different learning approaches?

Hypotheses

Because it seems reasonable to hypothesise that learners with linguistic insights may be more proficient in the target language,we would expect some degree of relationship between conscious knowledge(MLA)and L2proficiency. Consequently,it was first hypothesised that there is a significant correlation between judgement ability and French proficiency for advanced-level French L2 learners.

Based on the Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model,which posits that only tasks which make similar underlying demands on the processing components should be significantly related,the second hypothesis claims that the correlation between tasks which measure MLA and those which measure L2proficiency depends on their underlying cognitive demands.Examining tasks in terms of their cognitive demands may shed light on why L2learners do well on some tasks but not on others.As a result of Bialystok and Ryan’s(1985a)claim that increases in analysed knowledge and control are related to different kinds of learning experiences,we would expect learners from a communicative approach to do better on the judgement test that makes higher demands on control,while learners from the grammar approach would do better on the judgement test which makes lower demands on control.It shoud be noted that one of the limita-tions of the present study is that the three-step judgement task makes high

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency253 demands on analysis whether it is presented in oral or written form.In fact,in the present study,MLA could only be demonstrated by a task which required correction and/or justification.Consequently,the written and oral judgement tests differ only in level of control.I do not feel that this reduces the value of one investigating whether learners from one approach perform differently from learners from another approach on the judgement tests.Consequently,the third hypothesis claims that students excel in different kinds of tasks as a function of their learning experiences (i.e. learning approaches).

Design

A between-groups matrix was used to compare correlations between tasks which made demands on analysed knowledge,control,or both,for two groups of learners.The demands which the judgement tasks made on analysed knowl-edge and control(see Table3)are those outlined by Bialystok(1982).These task demands were further verified by five well-experienced university second language instructors who were asked,after having read a three-page summary of the theoretical framework,to assign levels of analysis and control to the steps of each judgement test.Their assessment of the demands of the judgement tasks in terms of the two processing components was congruent with Bialystok.In the case of the sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test,the demands made on the processing components(see Table3)are in keeping with the claim of the model (Bialystok & Ryan, 1985b).

Subjects

Sixty-four(59females/5males)university advanced-level French L2learners whose native language is English participated in the study.They came from seven intact classes and ranged between20and26years of age with a mean age of 21.The class sizes ranged between12and23students,and occasionally the same students were enrolled in more than one of the participating classes.The French classes in question covered vocabulary acquisition,grammar review,oral expression, listening and reading comprehension.

Students in these courses are considered by the Second Language Institute of the University of Ottawa(SLI)to represent a high-intermediate to advanced level of proficiency.This classification stems from the fact that they have either successfully completed certain prerequisite courses,or in the case of new students,have obtained a score representative of the advanced proficiency level according to the French Proficiency Test of the SLI.Initially,ninety students agreed to participate in the study.Only those students whose native language was English and whose scores on the French Proficiency Test fell into the cate-gory of advanced-level learners could be included in the study.Once the French Proficiency Test scores and the students’profile according to a questionnaire(see Appendix A)were examined,26students were eliminated for either one or a combination of the following reasons:(1)not having scored high enough on the French Proficiency Test to be considered part of an advanced group,(2)failing to take both the grammaticality judgement test and the French Proficiency Test,(3) not meeting the criterion of coming from a communicative or grammar approach to learning French as a second or foreign language.

254Language Awareness Instruments

The grammaticality judgement test (judgement test)

The judgement test requires subjects to make grammaticality judgements about two sets of lexically different sentences;the first set is presented in written form,and the second set in oral form.Subjects first had to identify and correct the error, then provide the rule which the correction entailed.

The judgement tests consisted of9grammatically correct and21grammati-cally incorrect French sentences of approximately15syllables in length for each modality(written and oral).A test of reliability of the scores on the judgement tests produced a Cronbach alpha of0.87for the written judgement test and an alpha of0.77for the oral judgement test.Eighteen of the21sentences(see Appen-dix A)were taken from Bialystok(1979)and three sentences were created for the purpose of the present study.The sentences were presented in a fixed random order.Learners’ability to judge correct sentences was not taken into consider-ation in the analyses of the study since MLA was not measured simply by learn-ers’ability to judge a sentence grammatical or not,but rather by their ability to demonstrateanalysed knowledge by correcting the error and providing the rule.

Incorrect sentences contained only one error of a type which research has shown to be representative of errors frequently committed by L2learners (Naiman et al.,1978;Swain,1976).Seven sentences contained an error related to the adjective;seven sentences contained an error related to the direct or indirect object pronoun;and seven sentences contained an error related to the verb(see Appendix B).I am following Bialystok’s lead in selection of type of error.This is not to say,however,that these errors measure one single construct of MLA.The fact that they are disparate does not detract from the interest of the present study. Although the grammarpoints were all considered to have been covered in earlier French courses,participants had not been re-taught the grammar rules for the purpose of the study.A questionnaire verifying course content was sent to the instructors of the two participating French classes which included grammar revi-sion.The instructors confirmed that generally the grammar points in the judge-ment tests had not been re-taught in the classes in question,but that some may have been encountered through exercises or writing assignments.In the ques-tionnaire section below,further information is provided about the composition of the group of students and their participationin grammar-oriented instruction. The French proficiency test

The French Proficiency Test1of the University of Ottawa was developed as a placement test for the university population,and its standards were used in the present study as a means of determining the advance proficiency level of partici-pants.The skills tested are listening comprehension(three texts with18items), reading comprehension(three texts with18items),and general knowledge of vocabulary,grammar,and structure as measured by a cloze text(28to32items). Although these skills are receptive,the test has proven to be an excellent measure of L2proficiency in that it effectively places students in an L2academic language-learning environment where they have been shown to successfully function and meet course demands.In carrying out the French Proficiency Test, learners first have to listen to and read different texts in French,and then select appropriate anwsers to the questions presented in writing from a multi-

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency255 ple-choice format,appropriate answers to the questions presented in writing. This is followed by a cloze text using a multiple-choice format.

With respect to the cognitive demands that the sub-tests place on analysis and control,the listening and reading tests are considered to place high demands on both components.This is so because learners have to both listen for detail and read questions on the listening passage,therefore alternating between the message and form.In the reading test,demands are high on analysis because meaning is conveyed and interpreted through the language,while demands are high on control because the learner must shift attention back and forth between the formal features of the printed text and the emerging meaning that is being constructed(Bialystok&Ryan,1985a).The cloze test,because of its focus on form is considered to make high demands on analysis and low demands on control. Questionnaire

Participants completed a questionnaire which provided information about the L2learning approaches to which they had been exposed in junior high and high school.2A Core French programme generally consists of approximately200 minutes of French grammar-based instruction per week.A French Immersion programme is considered to be more communication oriented than grammar based.Typically,in French Immersion most of a student’s education takes place in French,although the exact amount of instruction carried out in the target language can vary depending on year of study.Although no attempt was made to draw a comparable portion of post-immersion and post-core students from the original pool,responses to the questionnaire resulted in the formation of a Communicative Group(n=33)and a Grammar Group(n=31).Since the Univer-sity of Ottawa prides itself on attracting both Core and Immersion high school graduates, this finding came as no surprise.

The questionnaire provided information on the number of years of study and type of French programme,the number of hours per week of French instruction and the percentage of time spent on French grammar and communicative activi-ties.Classifying a learner as having come from a communicative approach or from a grammar approach to learning French stemmed from the responses to detailed questions concerning the learning approaches to which they had been exposed.For example,when a learner circled more years of Core French study than French Immersion follow-up questions provided characteristics of an approach where grammar was emphasised(e.g.50%–75%of class time spent on grammar instruction),and learners had to state if this was reflective of their schooling.In cases where participants’responses did not clearly reflect one programme or the other,a follow-up telephone interview was used to clarify their learning backgrounds.For example,a learner may have circled more years of French Immersion than Core French study,but claimed that50%–75%of time was spent on grammar.This amount of time spent on grammar is more in keep-ing with a grammar approach to learning.

An examination of the group membership of those participants who were taking a French course dealing with grammar showed that they were almost evenly divided between the Communicative Group and Grammar Group(e.g., seven in one group and nine in the other).Consequently,subject enrolment in

256Language Awareness French grammar-oriented university courses did not provide more of an advan-tage to one group over the other.

Procedures

Participants first completed the questionnaire,then the written judgement test followed by the oral judgement test.Instructions were provided orally by the researcher who drew participants’attention to a sample sentence on the test sheet,and who informed them that sentences could either be correct or contain one error.The students were told to decide whether the written sentence,and later the orally presented sentence,was correct or incorrect.In the written judge-ment test,they had to place a check mark in a box to indicate that the sentence was correct or incorrect.They then had to circle the error,correct it and provide the rule that the correction entailed.In the oral judgement test,students had to indicate whether the sentence was correct or incorrect,write down the error, correct it and provide the rule.The maximum score for each sentence was three points.One point was given for correctly identifying the error.Two points were given for identifying and correcting the error,and three points were given for identifying and correcting the error,and providing the rule.A wrong correction or incorrect rule did not receive any points.

The grammaticality judgement tests were administered together during normal scheduled French classes.To ensure that demands on the control compo-nent were low,fifty minutes were allowed for completion of the items on the written judgement test.The oral judgement test consisted of listening to a tape recording of each sentence.Participants heard the sentences three times.There was a three-second pause between the first and second reading,a ten-second pause between the second and third reading,and a fifteen-second pause between the third reading and the next sentence.In keeping with tasks which make high demands on the control component,the oral presentation of items and comple-tion of the test took25minutes.3The prescribed amount of time allowed for completion of the judgement tasks is consistent with similar tasks in earlier stud-ies (Bialystok & Fr?hlich, 1978; Bialystok, 1982).

The French Proficiency Test was administered on campus to groups of3–8 participants within three weeks of the data collection.A few subjects who had taken the proficiency test at the beginning of the academic year,but who had not been enrolled in a French class,were exempt from writing the test for the purpose of the study. In these cases, their previous scores were used.

Data analysis

The variables which are part of the analyses described below correspond to the scores on the French Proficiency Test and the judgement tests.Descriptive statistics are presented in Table1.In order to test Hypothesis1and Hypothesis2, Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficients were calculated.An alpha level of0.05was set as the required level of significance.To test Hypothesis3,a test of interaction(ANOVA)between groups and judgement tests was carried out.To briefly summarise Table1,the Communicative Group and the Grammar Group performed evenly on the cloze,listening and reading sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test.The means are homogeneous,their respective differ-ences being:-0.61for the cloze test,1.64for the listening test,-0.55for the reading

test.On the judgement tests,differences between means are more apparent:-3.13for the written judgement test and 4.36for the Oral Judgement test.This observa-tion suggests a possible interaction between judgement test and groups.Results of analyses: Test of hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant relationship between grammaticality judgement, and French Proficiency for advanced-level learners

Table 2shows a significant global relationship between grammaticality judgement and French proficiency for the entire sample of advanced learners (r =0.33for written,and r =0.34for oral,both at p <0.01).However,when the subjects are divided into groups that correlation is no longer significant for the Commu-nicative-approach learners (r =0.24,p >0.05).This means that as scores on the judgement tests increase for the entire sample and for the Grammar Group,so do their scores on the French Proficiency Test.

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency 257Table 2Pearson Correlation Coefficients between the grammaticality judgement tests and the French Proficiency Test for the entire sample,for the Communicative and Grammar Groups

Legend :p < 0.001***;p < 0.01**;p < 0.05*.

Table 1Descriptive statistics for the sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test and the judgement tests for the entire sample,the Communicative Group and Grammar Group

Note :The sub-tests of the French Proficiency Test are cloze/listening/reading. Maximum scores:

258Language Awareness Hypothesis 2: The correlation between tasks which measure MLA and those which measure L2 proficiency is higher when the underlying demands of the tasks are the same, and lower when the underlying demands differ

The Bialystok and Ryan(1985b)model posits that all tasks and abilities can be analysed to determine the demands made upon analysed knowledge and control(see Table3).Of particular interest in Table3is the significant correla-tion between cloze and written judgement for the sample as a whole(r=0.45, p<0.001),for the Communicative Group(r=0.44,p<0.05)and for the Grammar Group(r=0.47,p<0.01).A significant correlation was found between Cloze and Oral Judgement for the sample as a whole(r=0.51,p<0.001),for the Communi-cative Group(r=0.43,p<0.05)and for the Grammar Group(r=0.59,p<0.001).It was not expected that oral judgement would be significantly correlated to cloze because the former makes high demands on the control component.One possi-ble reason may stem from the high intercorrelation,as shown in Table2,between written and oral judgement.Of further interest is the lack of correlation between some tasks which make the same demands.Table3shows that oral judgement and listening and reading for the entire sample and for each of the groups sepa-rately were not significantly correlated.I shall return to this finding in the discus-sion section.

Table3Pearson Correlation coefficients between the grammaticality judgement and components of French proficiency

Legend:p< 0.001***;p< 0.01**;p< 0.05*

Hypothesis 3: Learners excel in different kinds of tasks as a function of their learning experiences

Because all assumptions were met,Hypothesis 3was tested using a multivariate analysis of variance to determine group differences on the oral and written judgement tests.A Pillai’s test indicates that there is a global and significant difference between the groups on the judgement test (F =7.86,df =2.00,p <0.001).Univariate tests showed a significant interaction between the Communicative and Grammar groups on the judgement test variable F =17.34;df =1;p =0.000(see Figure 2).This means that,as expected,the communicative-approach learners performed better on the oral judgement test (which made greater demands on control)and the grammar-approach learners performed better on the written judgement test (which made less demands on control).

Discussion

The significant correlations between the oral judgement test,the written judgement test and the global score on the French Proficiency Test for the entire sample provide evidence that the higher a learner’s MLA,as defined by the score on the judgement tests,the higher the score is likely to be on the French Profi-ciency Test.These results corroborate findings from previous studies (Bialystok &Fr?hlich,1978;Bialystok,1982;Gass,1983;Masny,1987;Thomas,1988)which An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency

259Figure 2Interaction of groups on written and oral judgement tests

260Language Awareness have demonstrated that an increase in the level of MLA is concomitant with an increase in L2proficiency,and therefore provide support for Hypothesis1. Nonetheless,in two studies carried out by Alderson and Steel(1994)and Alderson et al.(1996),a test of university French L2learners’metalinguistic knowledge did not correlate with their scores on French A-level exams consid-ered by the researchers to be the most comprehensive measure of L2proficiency in the UK.One possible reason for the lack of significant relationship may be that the test of metalinguistic knowledge concentrated as much on grammar knowl-edge of learners’L1as L2.Such was not the case in the present study,where the grammaticality judgement tests focused on L2grammar points only.In the pres-ent study,the judgement tests and the French Proficiency Test for the Communi-cative Group were not significantly correlated despite there being no significant difference in level of proficiency between the two groups of learners.This find-ing provides support for Bialystok’s(1994)claim that learners who have been exposed to different learning approaches will perform differently on tasks which make high demands on analysed knowledge, control, or both.

Since most of the work carried out on levels of analysed knowledge and control in relation to task demands has centred on children’s MLA,we will discuss Hypothesis2in the light of research findings in child MLA studies.The correlations in the present study are inconsistent with results found in child stud-ies.Correlation results in child studies(Bialystok,1986,1988a;Bialystok& Majumder,1998;Ricciardelli,1993),generally show significant relationships among different tasks that make the same processing demands,irrespective of content,but not among tasks which differ in their processing demands.Some of the significant correlations,as well as some of the non-significant correlations described here point to our lack of understanding of the relationships between tasks that are believed to make similar or divergent demands.Although this suggests inconclusive evidence regarding Hypothesis2,several possible expla-nations concerning these results of the study merit discussion.

One important difference between the child studies just cited and the present study is the nature of the metalinguistic test.In the child studies,children were called upon to carry out different metalinguistic tasks.Such was not the case for the written and oral judgement tests,where learners in both tests had to identify, correct,and provide the rule for the error.Children’s metalinguistic tasks vary greatly in that they may be required(1)to state which word in a sentence rhymes with another;(2)to choose the longer of two words such as train and caterpillar;

(3)to permute words,as in Piaget’s(1929)sun-moon task;4(4)to judge sentences for grammaticality when the sentence is grammatically correct but not meaning-ful(Gm)or when it is meaningful but not grammatically correct(gM)(Bialystok, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1991).

Bialystok(1986)states that gM sentences provide a greater challenge to analysed knowledge than to control because of having to detect the error in grammaticality.However,at the same time,because such sentences(ungram-matical but meaningful)are incongruent,they do contain some level of control burden(Bialystok,1986).As regards Bialystok’s(1986)claim that increased levels of analysis can alleviate the control burden,one possible explanation for the high correlation between the written and the oral judgement tests is that learners’analysed knowledge helped overcome the control burden.This is

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency261 particularly interesting when considering findings in child MLA studies which showed that children’s contact with the L2resulted in increases to the control component(Bialystok,1986,1988b;Bialystok&Codd,1997;Bialystok& Majumder, 1998).

Another claim of the Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model is that different learn-ing approaches or experiences may lead to differential increases in the process-ing components.The significant differences presented in the results section illustrate that grammar-approach learners did better on the written judgement test,while the communicative-approach learners did better on the oral judge-ment test.These results support the hypothesis that learners excel in different kinds of tasks as a function of their learning experiences.

According to the Bialystok and Ryan(1985a)model,some tasks are more diffi-cult than others for learners,depending on the level of analysed knowledge and control required to complete the task.The significant interaction lends support to Bialystok’s(1994)claim that the development of the two components is governed to some extent by different factors,such as learning approaches and experiences. Conclusion and Implications

Although these findings illustrate that increases in metalinguistic awareness are associated with increases in proficiency,my intention is not to claim that one is caused by the other.Indeed,there are many factors which can influence L2 learning.However,grammar knowledge has been de-emphasised over the past two decades,and these research findings will hopefully contribute to educators and researchers re-evaluating the importance of grammar knowledge in L2 learning.The importance of knowledge about grammaris further emphasised by the results which point to learners’levels of analysed knowledge as having alle-viated the demands made on the control component.This finding is particularly relevant in light of child studies which point to the advantages of learning a second language as being linked to increases in children’s control.In the case of these adult learners,it was their increased level of analysed knowledge which seemed to provide them with an advantage in coping with tasks which made high demands on both processing components.

The differences between the groups of learners on the written and oral judge-ment tests draw attention to Bialystok’s(1982)suggestion that rather than asking how often a learner produces the correct response,the question should be refor-mulated as:‘Under what circumstances does the learner produce the correct response?’In a similar vein,Tarone(1987)and R.Ellis(1987)suggest that discus-sions of learners’abilities should include a description of the demands being placed on them.The differences between these groups of learners on two metalinguistic tests which differ in their mode of presentation,and consequently in their levels of control, point to the importance of examining task demands.

Analysing tasks for the level of analysed knowledge and control required to complete them,and interpreting learners’performance in the context of those demands,will provide information that will make it easier to understand why learners’performance in one situation is not necessarily indicative of perfor-mance in other situations.On the one hand,such information may help in predict-ing how learners are likely to perform under certain conditions.And in addition,

262Language Awareness it may help explain their performance:for example,if learners are found not to perform well on certain tasks,it will be worth considering the degree of analysed knowledge and control the tasks require.

With respect to the pedagogical implications of this study,the results suggest that increasing levels of analysed knowledge should be an ongoing goal of both learners and teaching methods.Making second-language learners aware of the benefits of increases in both components,is,in a way,a means of empowering them,and therefore an important step towards creating autonomous learners. Little(1991)claims that learner autonomy(defined as the ability to take charge of one’s learning)depends upon‘detachment,critical reflection,decision making and independent action’(p.4).The role of metalinguistic tasks in enhancing criti-cal reflection is that accessing analysed knowledge makes students aware of implicit knowledge and in turn makes knowledge explicit.Learners need analysed or explicit knowledge in order to think critically.

More support for the importance of analysed knowledge in L2learning can be found in the literature.Ellis(1990)claims that conscious knowledge helps the learner notice the gap between their own output and the input to which they are exposed.Noticing the gap is particularly beneficial to increases in accuracy and improving L2proficiency.In a similar vein,Swain and Lapkin(1995)claim that grammatical analysis is required for accurate production.Moreover,the grammaticality judgement task allows the second-language teacher to draw the learner’s attention to the formal aspects of the language,to focus on form and to raise consciousness without formally teaching a grammar point.It is a means of pushing the learner to reflect upon what he or she knows;therefore transforming implicit knowledge into conscious analysed knowledge.

Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research More research is needed in this area.A limitation of the present study is that the judgement tests could not be rotated.Consequently,in order to examine any possible effect of presentation,a follow-up study should be carried out where the order of the oral and written judgement tasks are counter-balanced.In future research,it would also be interesting to study the relationship between MLA and L2proficiency using instruments which have an oral component.In the present study,neither the grammaticalityjudgement test nor the French Proficiency Test required learners to speak.A future study could develop a metalinguistic task to examine how learners from communicative and grammar approaches perform on a task which makes high demands on control,but low demands on analysed knowledge.Such a task could not be used in the present study since in the case of grammaticality judgement,it would not have demonstrated metalinguistic awareness.The theoretical framework claims that MLA is demonstrated through correcting the error and providing the rule;tasks which require a high level of analysed knowledge.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Hubert Seguin and Victoria Murphy for their helpful comments on a previous version of this paper.Responsibility for errors and/or sylistic annoyances rests solely with the author.

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency263 Correspondence

Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Janet Renou,ESADE-Escuela de Idiomas,Ramon Llull University,92-96Esplugues Ave,E-08034Barcelona, Spain (renou@esade.es).

Notes

1.The French Proficiency Test has a KR20of0.95+as a measure of internal consistency.

2.Although students had taken French in junior high,high school and at university,

total instruction time was not a variable.The questionnaire described Core French and French Immersion programmes typically associated with junior and high school French-language programmes throughout Canada.Although we acknowledge that in recent years approaches to French L2learning have been eclectic,subjects were clas-sified according to whether they came from a communicative or grammar approach.

Since all subjects fell into the advanced level on the University of Ottawa French Profi-ciency Test and because of the variation in types of university-level French courses,it was decided to base the formation of the groups on information regarding their L2-learning approaches at the secondary level.

3.The tests were not rotated because of the likelihood of participants arriving five or

more minutes late.This would have resulted in their missing20%of the orally presented test items and would have disqualified them.

4.The sun-moon task involved young children being told that the sun was going to be

called the moon and the moon was to be called the sun.Children were then asked,‘What is in the sky when you go to bed?’

References

Alderson,J.C.(1979)The cloze procedure and proficiency in English as foreign language.

TESOL Quarterly13, 219–227.

Alderson,J.C.and Steel,D.(1994)Metalinguistic knowledge,language aptitude and language proficiency.In D.Graddol and S.Thomas(eds)Language in a Changing Europe (pp. 93–103). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Alderson,J.C.,Clapham,C.and Steel,D.(1996)Metalinguistic knowledge,language aptitude and language proficiency.Centre For Language In Language Education.

Working Papers Series26.

Arthur,B.(1980)Gauging the boundaries of second language competence.A study of learner https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0817815394.html,nguage Learning30, 177–194.

Bialystok, E.(1979)Explicit and implicit judgments of https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0817815394.html,nguage Learning29, 81–103.

Bialystok,E.(1982)On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms.

Applied Linguistics3, 181–206.

Bialystok,E.(1986)Factors in the growth of linguistic awareness.Child Development XX 498–510.

Bialystok, E.(1988a)Levels of bilingualism and levels of linguistic awareness.

Developmental Psychology24, 560–567.

Bialystok,E,(1988b)Aspects of linguistic awareness in reading comprehension.Applied Psycholinguistics9, 123–139.

Bialystok, E. (1990)Communication Strategies. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bialystok,E.(1991)Metalinguistic dimensions of bilingual language processing.In E.

Bialystok(ed.)Language Processing in Bilingual Children(pp.113–140).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok,E.(1992)Attentional control in children’s metalinguistic performance and measures of field independence.Developmental Psychology28, 654–664.

Bialystok, E.(1994)Analysis and control in the development of second language proficiency.Studies in Second Language Acquisition16, 157–168.

Bialystok, E.and Fr?hlich,M.(1978)The aural grammar test:Description and implications.Working Papers in Bilingualism15, 15–35.

264Language Awareness Bialystok, E.and Ryan, E.B.(1985a)Toward a definition of metalinguistic skill.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly31, 229–251.

Bialystok,E.and Ryan,E.B.(1985b)Metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills.In D.L.Forrest-Pressley,G.E.MacKinnon and T.G.Waller (eds)Meta-cognition,Cognition,and Human Performance(pp.207–252).New York: Academic Press.

Bialystok, E.and Ryan, E.B.(1985c)On precision and virtue of simplicity in metalinguistics: A reply to Menyuk.Merrill-Palmer Quarterly31, 261–264. Bialystok,E.and Codd,J.(1997)Cardinal limits:Evidence from language awareness and bilingualism for developing concepts of number.Cognitive Development12, 85–106. Bialystok,E.and Majumder,S.(1998)The relationship between bilingualism and the development of cognitive processes in problem solving.Applied Psycholinguistics19, 69–85.

Bloor,T.(1986)What do language students know about grammar?British Journal of Language Teaching24, 157–160.

Cohen,A.D.(1980)Testing Language Ability in the Classroom.Rowley,MA:Newbury House.

Coppieters,R.(1987)Competence differences between native and near-native speakers.

Language63, 544–573.

Cromdal,J.(1999)Childhood bilingualism and metalinguistic skills:Analysis and control in young Swedish-English bilinguals.Applied Psycholinguistics20, 1–20.

DeKeyser,R.(1995)Learning second language grammar rules:An experiment with a minature linguistic system.Studies in Second Language Acquisition17, 379–340.

Ellis,N.(1993)Rules and instances in foreign language learning:Interactions of implicit and explicit knowledge.European Journal of Cognitive Psychology5, 289–319.

Ellis, R. (1987)Second Language Acquisition in Context. London: Prentice-Hall.

Ellis,R.(1990)Grammaticality judgments and learner variability.In H.Burmeister and P.

Rounds(eds)Variability in Second Language Acquisition:Proceedings of the Tenth Meeting of the Second Language Research Forum(pp.25–60).Eugene,OR:University of Oregon, Department of Linguistics.

Ellis,R.(1991)Grammaticality judgements and second language acquisition.Studies in Second Language Acquisition13, 161–186.

Ellis,R.and Rathbone,M.(1987)The Acquisition of German in a Classroom Context.

Mimeograph. London: Ealing College of High Education, London.

Gass, S. (1983) The development of L2 intuitions.TESOL Quarterly17, 273–291.

Gass,S.(1994)The reliability of second language grammaticality judgments.In E.Tarone et al.(eds)Research Methodology in Second Language Acquisition(pp.302–322).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Germain,C.and Seguin,H.(1995)Le Point sur:La Grammaire.Montreal:Centre Educatif Culturel.

Hammerly,H.(1991)Fluency and Accuracy:Toward Balance in Language Teaching and Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Harley,B.(1989)Functional grammar in French immersion:A classroom experiment.

Applied Linguistics19, 331–359.

Harley, B.and Swain,M.(1984)The interlanguage of immersion students and its implications for second language teaching.In A.Davies et al.(eds)Interlanguage(pp.

123–140). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kellerman,E.(1986)An eye for an eye:Crosslinguistic constraints on the development of the L2lexicon.In E.Kellerman and M.Sharwood Smith(eds)CrosslinguisticInfluence in Second Language Acquisition(pp. 35–48). Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen,S.(1981)Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning.Oxford: Pergamon.

Larsen-Freeman,D.(1995)On teaching and learning grammar:Challenging the myths.In

F.R.Eckman et al.(eds)Second Language Theory and Pedagogy(pp.131–150).Mahwah,

NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Leow,R.(1996)Grammaticality judgement tasks and second language development.In J.

Alatis et al.(eds)Georgetown University Roundtable of Languages and Linguistics.

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency265 Linguistics,Language Acquisition and Language Variation:Current Trends and Future Perspectives(pp. 126–139). Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Liceras,J.(1983)Markedness,contrastive analysis and the acquisition of Spanish syntax by English speakers. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Toronto. Lightbown,P.and Halter,R.H.(1993)Comprehension-basedESL Program in New Brunswick: Grade 8. Final report to the Department of the Secretary of State, Ottawa.

Little,D.(1991)Learner Autonomy:Definitions,Issues and Problems.Trinity College,Dublin: Authentik.

Long,M.(1991)Focus on form:A design feature in language teaching methodology.In K.

De Bot et al.(eds)Foreign Language Research in a Cross-Cultural Perspective(pp.39–51).

Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Lyster, R. (1987) Speaking immersion.Canadian Modern Language Review43, 701–717. Masny,D.(1987)The role of language and cognition in second language metalinguistic awareness.In https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0817815394.html,ntolf and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0817815394.html,barca(eds)Research in Second Language Learning: Focus on the Classroom(pp. 61–72). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Masny,D.(1991)Language learning and linguistic awareness:The relationship between proficiency and acceptability judgements in L2.In C.James and P.Garrett(eds) Language Awareness in the Classroom(pp. 290–304). London: Longman.

Masny, D.and d’Anglejan, A.(1985)Language,cognition,and second language grammaticality judgments.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research14, 175–197.

Mitchell,R.and Hooper,J.(1991)Teachers views of language knowledge.In C.James and P. Garrett (eds)Language Awareness in the Classroom(pp. 11–29). London: Longman. Murphy,V.(1997)The effect of modality on a grammaticality judgement task.Second Language Research13, 34–65.

Naiman,N.,Fr?hlich,M.,Stern,H.and Todesco,A.(1978)The Good Language Learner.

Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

Nemni,M.(1985)Si grammaire pouvait…si communication savait.Canadian Modern Language Review42, 288–305.

Oller,J.W.(1973)Cloze tests of second language proficiency and what they measure.

Language Learning23, 105–118.

Oller, J.W. (1979)Language Tests at School London: Longman.

Oller,J.W.(ed.)(1983)Issues in Language Testing Research.Rowley,MA:Newbury House. Piaget, J. (1929)The Child’s Conception of the World. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Reber,A.S.(1976)Implicit learning of synthetic languages:The role of instructional set.

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory2, 88–94. Ricciardelli,L.A.(1993)Two components of metalinguistic awareness:Control of linguistic processing and analysis of linguistic knowledge.Applied Psycholinguistics14, 349–367.

Robinson,P.(1996)Consciousness,Rules and Instructed Second Language Acquisition.New York: Pergamon Press.

Schachter,J.(1989)Testing a proposed universal.In S.Gass and J.Schachter(eds) Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition(pp.52–89).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sharwood Smith,M.(1988)Modularity in second language research.Polyglot9(Fiche2, D1).

Sorace,A.(1985)Metalinguistic knowledge and use of the language in acquisition-poor environments.Applied Linguistics6, 239–254.

Swain,M.(1976)Changes in errors:Random or systematic?In G.Nickel(ed.)Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Applied Linguistics.Vol. 2.Stuttgart: Hochschulverlag.

Swain,M.and Lapkin,S.(1995)Problems in output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step towards second language learning.Applied Linguistics16, 371–391. Tarone,E.(1987)Methodologies for studying variability in second language acquisition.

In R. Ellis (ed.)Second Language Acquisition in Context. London: Prentice-Hall. Terrell,T.(1991)The role of grammar instruction in a communicative approach.The Modern Language Journal75, 165–179.

266Language Awareness Thomas,J.(1988)The role played by metalinguistic awareness in second and third language learning.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development9, 235–246. White,L.(1991)Adverb placement in second language acquisition:Some effects of positive and negative evidence in the classroom.Second Language Research7,133–161.

Appendix A

Written grammaticality judgement test items

1.Il s’est dépêché, mais l’autobus était déjà parti.

2.Il voulait des livres, mais il ne l’a pas vus.

3.Elle a choisi une nouvelle robe, mais elle ne l’a pas achetée.

4.Hier, mon petit noir chat a vu un oiseau et il l’a tué.

5.Avant de partir pour l’Europe, elle a promis lui d’écrire.

6.Il lui les a prêtés, mais elle ne les a jamais rendus.

7.Marc ne comprend pas, mais il ne lui demande pas d’explications.

8.Il a acheté un beau bracelet qu’il lui a donne pour No?l.

9.Mon frère a caché ma jupe rouge, et je ne les ai pas trouvée.

10.Le mariage de la belle princesse était une occasion grande.

11.Nicole a fait des gateaux délicieux qu’elle nous a offerts.

12.Le gar?on est malade à cause de la mauvais nourriture.

13.On le lui a raconté, mais il l’ont oublié.

14.Pendant les grandes vacances, ma petite soeur ne s’a jamais lavée.

15.Ma mère a perdu son joli blanc chapeau dans le métro.

16.Mon père cherche toujours ses lunettes et il les trouve sur son nez.

17.André a re?u de grandes nouvelles et il leur les a dites.

18.Hier, ma grand-mère m’a raconté une histoire mystérieux.

19.Il veut acheter une bicyclette bonne, mais il n’a pas d’argent.

20.Le mari de mon amie nous a vendre sa belle voiture.

21.Le chien s’a approché de ma vieille tante, et elle l’a frappé.

22.Les soeurs de Jean, Marie et Isabelle, sont douces.

23.Le professeur d’anglais lui dit qu’il fait souvent de graves fautes.

24.Notre père nous avons aidés à trouver de jolis petits cadeaux.

25.Nous avons trouvé un livre qui nous plaisons beaucoup.

26.Kingston, qui est située en Ontario, nest pas une ville grande.

27.Il a cherché ses enfants partout , mais il ne la pas vus.

28.Ils se sont contentés de peu quand ils étaient pauvres.

29.Il lui a offert des roses jaunes pour son anniversaire.

30.Il lui a fait un bon d?ner, mais elle n’a pas l’aimé.

Oral grammaticality judgement test items

31.Maintenant, je leur montre les images qui sont dans le grand livre bleu.

32.Alain lance le ballon à Henri, mais il ne les attrape pas.

33.Les enfants les regardent par la fenêtre après le petit déjeuner.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/0817815394.html, bouteille de rouge vin que mon père t’a donnée vient de France.

35.Ton papa lui a demandé du fromage et il a le mangé.

36.Elle a fait des gants pour Marie et elle lui les a donnés.

37.C’est Jacques qui a vu cette petite annonce dans le nouveau journal.

38.Le grand méchant chien a mange les beaux souliers de mon frère.

An Examination of the Relationship between MLA and L2 Proficiency267

39.Maman a acheté des souliers bruns, mais elle ne la porte pas.

40.Elle met le livre dans son sac grand avant de prendre l’autobus.

41.Elle leur a lu l’histoire du petit prince, mais ils ne l’aimaient pas.

42.Il ne prend pas sa nouveau voiture, mais il la laisse chez lui.

43.Nous avons acheté une grosse orange que nous a mangée.

44.Nous nous avons rencontrés après la grande fête du Carnaval.

45.Je t’ai vu avec ton ami Fran?ois qui a un brun chien.

46.Ce détail que Michel n’a pas remarqué est très important.

47.Il a trouvé de belles photos et il leur les a montrées.

48.Nos bons amis nous ont chanté une beau chanson de No?l.

49.Ce matin, ils se sont levés d’heure bonne pour étudier.

50.Mon grand frère a dormir toute la nuit en face de la télé.

51.Elle s’a arrêtée au restaurant après sa dernière classe.

52.Il a écrit une longue lettre, mais il n’a pas l’envoyée.

53.Nous nous sommes bien amusés avec nos vieux amis fran?ais.

54.J’ai acheté les bottes que tu m’avons montrées dans le magasin.

55.Les garcons ont dites qu’ils étaient fatigués.

56.Ton fils, j’ai vu lui avec ses amis cet après-midi dans le parc.

57.Tous les gens du village pensent que c’est une fille bonne.

58.Lucie a dit qu’elle sest bien amusée à Québec.

59.Ta voiture, je l’ai vue devant la maison.

60.Marie et sa soeur qui sont des filles sympatiques et douces.

Appendix B: French Grammar Rules

Adjective:A1.Colour adjectives always follow the noun.

A2.If the noun is feminine,the adjective which describes it is also feminine.

A3.The adjectives‘bon(ne)’and‘grand(e)’come before the noun they describe.

Pronoun:P1.The object pronoun comes directly before the verb.

P2.The direct pronouns le,la,les always come before the indirect pronouns.

P3.The direct object pronoun conforms in number to the noun it replaces.

Verb:V1.The subject determines which form of the auxiliary verb is used.

V2.Reflexive verbs form the passé composéwithêtre.

V3.To form the passécomposé,use the correct form of avoir orêtre plus the past participle of the verb.

语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案-精选版

小学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案 一、指导思想 以“构建和谐语言生活、弘扬中华优秀文化”为目标，以宣传贯彻《国家通用语言文字法》为重点，紧紧围绕2009年厦门市语言文字工作要点，本着“用普通话交流，沟通世界文明”的宗旨，做好各项常规工作，开展多样活动，创建规范、健康的校园语言文字应用环境，积极稳妥、循序渐进地推进我校语言文字规范化工作，切实提高全校师生的语言文字规范意识和语言文字应用能力，使语言文字工作与学校各项教育工作更好地结合起来，促进校园精神文明建设。 二、工作目标 在保持以往成绩的同时，继续不断加强学校校园文化建设，深入、细致、有序地推进学校语言文字工作的开展。努力将语言文字工作与学校的各项事业结合起来，纳入到学校各项规章制度、常规检查与评比活动中，渗透于各个层面、各项教育教学活动中，使我校语言文字工作在原有基础上进一步完善并有所创新，以取得长久实际的效果，全面提升校园文化品位。 三、主要工作与措施 1. 领导重视，规范学校语言文字工作的管理。 建立由一把手领导担任组长的康乐二小语言文字工作领导小组，充分发挥作用，做到分工合作，齐抓共管，引领全体教师要进一步增强对语言文字工作的责任意识，使普通话成为教学语言和校园语言。修改、健全学校推普网络，进一步完善学校、年级组教研组、班级三级管理网络体系。 2．营造校园推普氛围，加大语言文字宣传力度。 利用多种途径，如校园橱窗、教学楼墙壁、楼梯、食堂、红领巾广播站、教室墙壁黑板报、校园网等，继续开展语言文字规范化的宣传教育活动，组织全校师生进一步学习《国家通用语言文字法》，落实国家对学校语言文字规范化要求，更好地发挥学校在促进全社会语言文字规范化工作中的基础作用，创设良好的舆论氛围，形成和巩固多方配合、齐抓共管的工作局面。 3．开展丰富多彩的活动，提升语言文字规范化运用能力。 （1）教师垂范，做语言文字规范化表率。

语言文字规范标准

语言文字规范标准 十项最重要的语言文字规范标准 新中国建立以来，由政府发布的语言文字规范标准有一百多项，其中面向全国的、最为重要的有以下十项: 1、中华人民共和国文化部和中国文字改革委员会1955年公布的《第一批异体字整理表》，规定了具有异体关系的字组中哪个是规范字，哪个是应该淘汰的异体字。 2、第一届全国人民代表大会第五次会议与1958年批准的《汉语拼音方案》。国际标准化组织于1982年投票通过，规定《汉语拼音方案》是拼写汉语的国际标准，编号是:ISO 7098。 3、国家语言文字工作委员会、国家教育委员会、广播电视部1985年发布的《普通话异读词审音表》，规定了普通话异读词的标准读音。例如，“白”统读bái，过磅的“磅”读bàng。 4、国家语言文字工作委员会1986年重新发表的《简化字总表》，收简化字2235个。它规定了简化字的标准字形，以及简化字与繁体字的对应关系。 5、国家语言文字工作委员会和国家教育委员会1988年发布的《现代汉语常用字表》，规定了现代汉语的3500个常用字，以及每个字的标准字形，包括字的结构、笔画数和笔顺。 6、国家语言文字工作委员会和中华人民共和国新闻出版署1988年发布的《现代汉语通用字表》，规定了现代汉语的7000个通用字(包含3500个常用字)，以及每个字的标准字形，包括字的结构、笔画数和笔顺。 7、国家技术监督局1995年批准、发布的《标点符号用法》(GBT 15834-1995)，规定了16种标点符号的名称、形式和用法。

8、国家技术监督局1996年批准、发布的《汉语拼音正词法基本规则》(GBT 16159-1996)，规定了用《汉语拼音方案》拼写现代汉语的规则。 9、国家语言文字工作委员会和中华人民共和国新闻出版署1987年发布的《现代汉语通用字笔顺规范》，规定了7000个通用字的笔顺标准。 10、中华人民共和国教育部、国家语言文字工作委员会2001年发布的，《第一批异体词整理表》(GF 1001-2001)，给出了338组异形词的推荐使用词形。例如，在“本分”“本份”这组异形词中，“本分”是推荐使用字形;在“标 志”“标识” 这组异形词中，“标志” 是推荐使用字形;在“驾驭”“驾御” 这组异形词中，“驾驭” 是推荐使用字形。

认知语言学讲解

陈忠著 , 《认知语言学研究》 , 2005年 , 第1页 第一章认知语言学概说 第一节认知语言学的理论主张及其背景 20世纪80年代兴起于欧美，并以1989在德国杜伊斯堡召开的第一届国际认知语言学会议为准，标志着认知语言学正式成立。 认知语言学的哲学基础和理论主张与结构主义相对立，是通过对结构主义的反叛而建立发展起来的。 认知语育学研究的代表人物主要有： G.Lokoff；R．W Langacker ；C．Fillmore；M.Johnson； R．TayIor；Haiman，M．John；D．Geeraerts；P．Kay等。 戴浩一1985《时间顺序和汉语的语序原则》、1990《以认知为基础的汉语功能语法争议》；谢信一1991《汉语中的时间和意象》；沈家煊1995《“有界”与“无界”》、1999《转指和转喻》、1993《句法的象似性问题》；张敏l 998《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》；石毓智《语法的认知语义基础》，赵艳芳2001《认知语言学理论》；袁毓林1995《词类范畴的家族相似性》。 认知语自学的理论主张与结构主义和生成语法相对立。认知语言学的语言观是建立在经验主义或称为非客观主义哲学基础之上的。认知语言学认为，抽象的心智活动不能脱离身体经验和形体。认知结构与身体经验密切相关，并且以感知、动觉、经验为基础，思维具有想象性。概念要么来源于经验，要么通过隐喻、转喻和意象发展而来；思维具有完形件和整体性；语言符号不是直接对应于客观世界．而是与用科学概念结构保持一致。 关于语言能力的问题，认知诺言学认为，语言能力是人的一般认知能力的一个组成部分，语言不是自足的封闭系统。一方面语言的编码和解码过程以认知为基础，另一方面，语言在结构方面也参照人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能。换言之，语言无论是在意义上还是在结构形式上，都是建立在人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能基础之上的。语言不能脱离人类概念知识、身体经验和话语功能而独立运作。 就语义而言，用真值条件的形式逻辑描写语义是不够的，语义和使用者的知识系统密不可分。语义描写必须参照开放的知识系统。 语言知识和非语言知识之间没有绝对而明确的界限。语言能力跟一般认知能力是分不开的。 从语言内部层面来看，认知语言学认为，句法不是自足、自主的形式系统，句法跟词汇互参互动，相互制约，相互依存。不存在一个可以脱离语义、词汇意义独立运转的独立的句法系统。 关于句法是不是自足、自主的形式系统，这是认知语言学和结构主义语言学争执的焦点。以生成语法为代表的极端形式主义观点的基本主张，是句法自主论。该观点把句法看做是自主的系统．可以脱离语义独立运作。并且认为语百符号的编码具有任意性。 关于语吉符号有没有任意性的问题，历来颇有争议。索绪尔把符号内部的所指和能指之间的关系界定为任意性结合，但是大量的语言事实都对语言符号任意性这一观点提出了挑战。如：“大小、长短、左右、前后、高低”合乎正常范式和语感，而x“小大、短长、右左、后的、低高”却不正常。在“量级”表达形式方面，高量级和低量级之间往往不对称、不均衡，因此“量级”范畴的编码并不是任意的。在这种不对称、不均衡的背后，是认知动因在起制约作用。 无论是“量级”、空间、时间关系，还是其他方面，也无沦是汉语还是英语，语言都不是任意进行编码的。而且编码的依据也不是仅仅根据句法规则。

学生自觉要求规范使用语言文字

学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案 一、语言文字规范的现实背景 1、小学生作业本中的错别字越来越多。学生进入中高年级后, 随着识字量的增加，错别字量也随之猛增。错别字的存在，不仅影响句子意思的表达，而且对学生提高整体语文素养带来极大的障碍。 2、社会不规范用字屡见不鲜。汉语言是我们的母语，学生从小到大每天都在说着、听着、看着。但是，在我们的日常生活中，商家招牌、广告宣传、电视媒体却常常是错字百出、繁简不分。小学生好奇心强，接受能力强，但是辨别能力不强，这些随处可见的用字不规范的现象给他们对语言文字的学习造成了很大的影响。 3．网络语言也渐渐成为小学生的潮流语言。很多调查显示：中小学生使用的规范词汇量大幅度减少，多使用网络用语，且很不规范。如，“头要爆炸了”，“很”、“非常”等表程度的副词已悄悄地被“超”所取代。如再不加以及时正确的引导，学生极可能养成不规范运用语言文字的习惯，最终导致表达交流的混乱。面对复杂的语言环境，强化学校在学生学习使用规范语言文字的作用，让学生从小认规范字、读规范音、知规范义成为语文教学中的重要问题。我们必须针对这些问题，采用多种形式强化语言文字的规范教育。 二、语言文字规范化的意义 1．是遵法守法的体现。1998年，国务院批转教育部《面向21 世纪教育振兴行动计划》中指出：“全面推进学校语言文字工作，各级各类学校特别是中小学、师范院校要继续把说好普通话、写好规范

字、提高语言文字能力作为素质教育的重要内容”；1999年12月，教育部、国家语委联合发出《关于进一步加强学校普及普通话和用字规范化工作的通知》，指出：“说好普通话、用好规范字、提高语言文字应用能力，是素质教育的重要内容。”2000年10月发布的《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》用法律形式明确规定：“国家推广普通话，推行规范汉字。”这一切都确定了普通话和规范汉字在学校教学中的法律地位，说明在全面推进素质教育的今天，学校语言文字工作是遵法守法的体现。 2．是贯彻《语文课程标准》精神的要求。人类进入信息时代以后，对通过写字实现的书面交际提出了更高的要求。《全日制语文课程标准》对写字提出了第一学段“养成正确的写字姿势和良好的写字习惯。”“初步感受汉字的形体美”，第二学段要求“用毛笔临摹正楷字帖”通过书法训练达到“在书写中体会汉字的优美”（第三学段）“体会书法的审美价值”（第四学段）等要求。要正确、端正地书写，就要严格遵守国家主管部门发布的有关字形、笔顺等一系列语文法规的规定，写规范汉字。只有大家都按照统一的规范标准写字，社会的书面交际才能顺利、高效、快速。 3．是积淀学校文化底蕴的需要。语言文字是文化的载体，是学校文化底蕴的重要部分。语言文字更是国家历史和文化的积淀，是展示国家形象的窗口，正确、规范地使用母语是每个炎黄子孙应尽的责任。同时，规范使用我国的语言文字，丰富其内涵也是我们进入新的

国家通用语言文字法及语言文字规范知识100题

《国家通用语言文字法》及语言文字规范知识100题 学校：姓名：班级：座位号： 1. 2000年10月31日，九届全国人大第十八次会议通过，由****主席签发的《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》从起实施。 A. 2000年1月1日 B.2000年12月1日 C.2001年1月1日 2. 普通话和规范字是。 A. 国家法定语言文字 B.国家通用语言文字 C. 国家通行语言文字 3. 国家推广普通话，推行。 A. 规范汉字 B. 通用汉字 C. 标准汉字 4. 公民有学习和使用国家通用语言文字的。 A. 义务 B. 权利 C.责任 5. 国家为公民学习和使用国家通用语言文字提供。 A. 便利 B. 条件 C.培训 6. 地方各级人民政府及其应当采取措施，推广普通话和推行规范汉字。 A. 语言文字工作部门 B. 教育行政部门 C. 有关部门 7. 国家通用语言文字的使用应当有利于维护国家主权和民族尊严，有利于国家统一和民族团结，有利于社会主义。 A. 法制建设 B. 现代化建设 C.物质文明和精神文明建设 8. 国家奖励为国家通用语言文字事业做出的组织和个人。 A. 重大贡献 B. 突出贡献 C. 特殊贡献 9. 依据《中华人民共和国宪法》和《国家通用语言文字法》的规定，各民族都有自己的语言文字的自由 A. 使用 B. 发展 C. 使用和发展 10. 少数民族语言文字的使用依据及其他法律的有关规定。

A. 宪法、民族区域自治法 B. 宪法 C. 民族区域自治法 11. 国家机关以为公务用语用字。 A. 汉语和汉字 B. 普通话和规范汉字 C. 中文 12. 学校及其他教育机构通过教授普通话和规范汉字。 A.汉语文课程 B.语文课程 C.各种课程 13. 汉语文出版物以及信息处理和信息技术产品中使用的国家通用语言文字应当符合国家通用语言文字的。 A. 法律和规定 B. 方针和政策 C. 规范和标准 14. 广播电台、电视台以普通话为基本的播音用语。需要使用外国语言为播音用语的，须经批准。 A. 国务院语言文字工作部门 B. 国务院广播电视部门 C. 国务院外事工作部门 15.公共服务行业以为基本服务用字。 A. 规范汉字 B.通用汉字 C. 常用汉字 16.提倡公共服务行业以为服务用语。 A. 普通话 B. 当地方言 C. 普通话和当地方言 17.因公共服务需要，招牌、广告、告示、标志牌等使用外国文字并同时使用中文的，应当使用。 A. 简化汉字 B.印刷体汉字 C. 规范汉字 18. 在需要使用方言时可以使用方言。 A.各种艺术形式 B.戏曲、影视等艺术形式 C.话剧、影视等艺术形式 19.在书法、篆刻等艺术作品中可以保留或使用。 A. 繁体字 B. 异体字 C. 繁体字、异体字 20.国家通用语言文字以作写拼音和注音工具。 A.《汉语拼音方案》 B.《汉语拼音正词法基本规则》 C.注音字母

中心小学学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案

中心小学学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案 一、语言文字规范的现实背景 1.小学生作业本中的错别字越来越多。学生进入中高年级后, 随着识字量的增加,错别字量也随之猛增。错别字的存在,不仅影响句子意思的表达,而且对学生提高整体语文素养带来极大的障碍。 2.社会不规范用字屡见不鲜。汉语言是我们的母语,学生从小到大每天都在说着、听着、看着。但是,在我们的日常生活中,商家招牌、广告宣传、电视媒体却常常是错字百出、繁简不分。小学生好奇心强,接受能力强,但是辨别能力不强,这些随处可见的用字不规范的现象给他们对语言文字的学习造成了很大的影响。 3.网络语言也渐渐成为小学生的潮流语言。很多调查显示:中小学生使用的规范词汇量大幅度减少,多使用网络用语,且很不规范。如,“灰常好”,“很”、“非常”等表程度的副词已悄悄地被“超”所取代。如再不加以及时正确的引导,学生极可能养成不规范运用语言文字的习惯,最终导致表达交流的混乱。面对复杂的语言环境,强化学校在学生学习使用规范语言文字的作用,让学生从小认规范字、读规范音、知规范义成为语文教学中的重要问题。我们必须针对这些问题,采用多种形式强化语言文字的规范教育。 二、语言文字规范化的意义 1.是遵法守法的体现。1998年,国务院批转教育部《面向21 世纪教育振兴行动计划》中指出:“全面推进学校语言文字工作,各级各类学校特别是中小学、师范院校要继续把说好普通话、写好规范 字、提高语言文字能力作为素质教育的重要内容”;1999年12月,教育部、国家语委联合发出《关于进一步加强学校普及普通话和用字规范化工作的通知》,

指出:“说好普通话、用好规范字、提高语言文字应用能力,是素质教育的重要内容。”2000年10月发布的《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》用法律形式明确规定:“国家推广普通话,推行规范汉字。”这一切都确定了普通话和规范汉字在学校教学中的法律地位,说明在全面推进素质教育的今天,学校语言文字工作是遵法守法的体现。 2.是贯彻《语文课程标准》精神的要求。人类进入信息时代以后,对通过写字实现的书面交际提出了更高的要求。《全日制语文课程标准》对写字提出了第一学段“养成正确的写字姿势和良好的写字习惯。”“初步感受汉字的形体美”,第二学段要求“用毛笔临摹正楷字帖”通过书法训练达到“在书写中体会汉字的优 美”(第三学段)“体会书法的审美价值”(第四学段)等要求。要正确、端正地书写,就要严格遵守国家主管部门发布的有关字形、笔顺等一系列语文法规的规定,写规范汉字。只有大家都按照统一的规范标准写字,社会的书面交际才能顺利、高效、快速。 3.是积淀学校文化底蕴的需要。语言文字是文化的载体,是学校文化底蕴的重要部分。语言文字更是国家历史和文化的积淀,是展示国家形象的窗口,正确、规范地使用母语是每个炎黄子孙应尽的责任。同时,规范使用我国的语言文字,丰富其内涵也是我们进入新的 发展时期的需要,是传承民族文化、使中华民族的文化走向世界的要求。 4.规范、得体、文明的言谈举止是一个小学生良好素质的外显。为了与世界 缩短距离,大家在努力学习英语,但我们也不能放松祖国语言文字的应用能力和规范化水平,我们要向世人展示中国语言文字的独特魅力和中华民族的尊严,更好地传播中华民族优秀的文化传统。我们要求学生从身边做起,坚持说普通话、用规范字,重视文明言谈,树立良好的现代小学生的形象。 三、语言文字规范化的目标及内容

什么是语言文字规范标准

竭诚为您提供优质文档/双击可除什么是语言文字规范标准 篇一：语言文字规范化常识 语言文字知识复习材料（政策法规知识） 1.《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》于2000年10月31日，第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十八次会议通过。自20xx年1月1日起施行。 2.国务院决定自1998年起每年9月份第三周为全国推广普通话宣传周。 3.《国家通用语言文字法》第三条规定：国家推广普通话，推行规范汉字。 4.国家通用语言文字指的是普通话和规范汉字。 5.机关公文应当使用规范汉字。 6.《国家通用语言文字法》规定：国家机关以普通话和规范汉字为公务用语用字。 7.国家通用语言文字的使用应当有利于维护国家主权和民族尊严，有利于国家统一和民族团结，有利于社会主义物质文明建设和精神文明建设。 8.当前国家推广普通话的方针是：“大力推行、积极普

及、逐步提高”。 9.语言文字规范化工作要以学校为基础，以党政机关为龙头，以新闻媒体为榜样，以公共服务行业为窗口。 10.普通话的具体含义是：以北京语音为标准音，以北方话为基础方言，以典范的现代白话文著作为语法规范的现代汉民族共同语。 11.通过推广普通话，要逐步使普通话成为哪四种用语：校园用语、公务用语、宣传用语、社会服务用语。 12.推广普通话是促使公民普遍具备普通话应用能力，在正式场合和公共交际场合说普通话。 13.在下列情形下可以使用方言：（1）国家机关的工作人员执行公务时确需使用的；（2）经国务院广播电视部门或省级广播电视部门批准的播音用语；（3）戏曲、影视等艺术形式中需要使用的；（4）出版、教学、研究中确需使用的。 14.规范汉字是指现在通行的规范汉字。即经过整理简化并由国家以字表形式正式公布的正体字、简化字和未经整理简化的传承字。具体标准可参照国家公布的 《简化字总表》《第一批异体字整理表》《新旧字形对照表》《部分计量单位名称统一用字表》。 15.不规范汉字指的是：（1）已简化的繁体字。（2）已淘汰的异体字。（3）已淘汰的旧字形。（4）已废止的《第二次汉字简化方案（草案）》中的简化字。

【精选】学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案

瑞山联办小学 学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案 一、语言文字规范的现实背景 1．小学生作业本中的错别字越来越多。学生进入中高年级后,随着识字量的增加，错别字量也随之猛增。错别字的存在，不仅影响句子意思的表达，而且对学生提高整体语文素养带来极大的障碍。 2．社会不规范用字屡见不鲜。汉语言是我们的母语，学生从小到大每天都在说着、听着、看着。但是，在我们的日常生活中，商家招牌、广告宣传、电视媒体却常常是错字百出、繁简不分。小学生好奇心强，接受能力强，但是辨别能力不强，这些随处可见的用字不规范的现象给他们对语言文字的学习造成了很大的影响。 3．网络语言也渐渐成为小学生的潮流语言。很多调查显示：中小学生使用的规范词汇量大幅度减少，多使用网络用语，且很不规范。如，“头要爆炸了”，“很”、“非常”等表程度的副词已悄悄地被“超”所取代。如再不加以及时正确的引导，学生极可能养成不规范运用语言文字的习惯，最终导致表达交流的混乱。面对复杂的语言环境，强化学校在学生学习使用规范语言文字的作用，让学生从小认规范字、读规范音、知规范

义成为语文教学中的重要问题。我们必须针对这些问题，采用多种形式强化语言文字的规范教育。 二、语言文字规范化的意义 1．是遵法守法的体现。1998年，国务院批转教育部《面向21世纪教育振兴行动计划》中指出：“全面推进学校语言文字工作，各级各类学校特别是中小学、师范院校要继续把说好普通话、写好规范字、提高语言文字能力作为素质教育的重要内容”；1999年12月，教育部、国家语委联合发出《关于进一步加强学校普及普通话和用字规范化工作的通知》，指出：“说好普通话、用好规范字、提高语言文字应用能力，是素质教育的重要内容。”2000年10月发布的《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》用法律形式明确规定：“国家推广普通话，推行规范汉字。”这一切都确定了普通话和规范汉字在学校教学中的法律地位，说明在全面推进素质教育的今天，学校语言文字工作是遵法守法的体现。 2．是贯彻《语文课程标准》精神的要求。人类进入信息时代以后，对通过写字实现的书面交际提出了更高的要求。《全日制语文课程标准》对写字提出了第一学段“养成正确的写字姿势和良好的写字习惯。”“初步感受汉字的形体美”，第二学段要求“用毛笔临摹正楷字帖”通过书法训练达到“在书写中体会汉字的优美”（第三学段）“体会书法的审美价值”（第四学段）等要求。要正确、端正地书写，就要严格遵守国家主管部门发

国家通用语言文字的规范化

第一讲语音 第一节国家通用语言文字的规范化、标准化 一、二十世纪的汉语规范化运动 1、认识《国家通用语言文字法》颁行的意义，要了解语言文字法实施的时间。是第一部语文法，有利于促进语文发展，有利于两个文明建设，有利于国家的统一团结。同时对于语言文字法的一些具体条款要有所认识。 2、认识20世纪的汉语规范化运动的缘起、主要成果以及与新中国现代汉语规范化运动的关系此外要注意三大语文运动中的重要的人物、事件。如注音字母、国语罗马字、老国音、新国音等。比如去年秋季就考了老国音新国音转变的实质问题。 二、为什么以北京语音为普通话标准音 深入认识现代汉民族共同语在语音、词汇、语法方面的标准；理解以北京语音作为现代汉民族共同语标准音的内涵，确立语音标准的重要意义。关于这个问题我们在复习指导中作了比较细致的分析，大家可以了解一下其中的有关要点，能对三个标准进行阐释分析。 三、时期的语言文字工作 对新时期语言文字工作的方针、任务，主要成果有个一般了解即可。 四、语言文字的规范与标准：做到灵活运用就可以了。 第二节汉语拼音方案的理论阐释 一、汉语拼音方案与汉语拼音运动 对汉语拼音运动的历史作一般性了解，但是对于我们历史上由政府公布的第一套法定拼音方案和第一套音素制拉丁字母式拼音方案应该知道。 二、汉语拼音方案的设计和组成

首先要知道汉语拼音方案五个部分的基本内容，认识汉语拼音方案各个组成部分的构成情况，其次要熟练掌握汉语拼音的拼写规则，第三是能正确使用汉语拼音给汉字注音，或者分析音节结构；第四是能从理论上说明一些拼写规则的运用问题，比如i表示几个音素、以ü开头的所有韵母以及使用的规则、y和w的性质、用法等。 三、汉语拼音方案字母与语音的配置关系 这个问题理论性比较强，前四个问题，主要讨论声母配置问题，可作一般性了解，第五个问题舌尖元音的配置和第六个问题iou uei uen的拼写形式这两个内容要求掌握。 四、汉语拼音拼写规则和正词法基本规则 关于音节的拼写要熟悉拼写规则，同时能够对于规则的运用结合具体的韵母变化加以说明。同时能够给音节注音。 第三节普通话的语音系统 一、声母 认识普通话声母的特点，不要求展开，主要特点要有所了解。 二、韵母 第一、韵母结构分析及相关概念，只比专科多一个韵基概念，此外有逆同化。 第二、掌握韵母的分类：韵母可以从结构、韵头性质、韵尾特点进行分类，要认识各种分类的一些比较具体的类别以及分类的作用。 第三、了解普通话韵母的主要特点。 三、汉语拼音方案和普通话音位系统：本课程最难的内容就在这一块。 第四、掌握严式国际音标，具体要求是：一、知道国际音标所表示的音素和音位，掌握汉语拼音与国际音标的对应关系；二、能用国际音标标写音节中的某一个音素；三、能用国际音标给汉字注音。这里的要求没有超出语言学概论课程的要求范围。教材介绍国际音标涉

认知语言学

认知语言学是语言学中的一种新范式, 它包含许多不同的理论、方法及研究课题。认知语言学肇始于20 世纪70 年代, 80 年代中期以后其研究范围扩展到了语言学中的许多领域, 如句法、意义、音系以及语篇等。其成熟的重要标志是1989 年春在德国杜伊斯堡召开的第一次国际认知语言学会议以及1990 年出版的5认知语言学6杂志。自诞生之日起, 认知语言学就把自己置于认知科学这一大学科中, 与哲学、心理学、人类学、计算机科学以及神经科学等结下了不解之缘, 并逐渐成为当代语言学中的一门显学。 在过去20 多年里, 认知语言学研究在几个重要领域里已卓有成效, 如范畴化、概念隐喻、转喻、多义性、拟象性以及语法化等( 参见文旭1999, 2001) 。尽管认知语言学家内部在具体方法、感兴趣的课题、研究的切入点等方面还存在一些差别, 但他们的研究目标和基本原则有许多共同之处。为了进一步理解并准确把握这一新的认知范式, 本文拟对认知语言学的研究目标、基本原则、研究方法作一些解释与探讨。认知语言学的研究目标 语言是人类表达观念和思想的最明确的方式之一。从/ 表达观念和思想0的角度来研究人类语言, 这种观点就是通常所说的/ 认知观0。这种观点认为, 语言是认知系统的一部分, 而认 知系统由感知、情感、范畴化、抽象化以及推理等组成。这些认知能力与语言相互作用并受语言的影响, 因此从某种意义上来说, 研究语言实际上就是研究人类表达或交流观念和思想的方式。 当代语言学的一个基本特点就是对认知现实主义( cognitive realism) 的承诺, 即确认语言是一种心理或认知现象。语言学诸多门派都以探索隐藏在大脑中具有普遍性的人类语言机制作为终极目标, 换句话说, 语言分析的目的不只是描写人们的语言行为, 而是解释引起语言行为的心理结构和心理过程, 揭示语言行为背后内在的、深层的规律。像乔姆斯基、杰肯道夫(R. Jackendoff) 、兰格克(R. Langacker) 、雷科夫(G. Lakoff) 、比尔沃思(M. Bierwisch ) 以及赫德森(R. Hudson) 这些代表不同理论方法的语言学家, 他们的研究都具有这一目的。如果仅从这一目的来看, 那么乔姆斯基的生成语法、杰肯道夫的概念语义学、赫德森的词语法(word gram2 mar) 与兰格克、雷科夫等人的认知语言学是完全一致的, 这样他们的理论似乎可以合法地称为/ 认知语言学0。然而/ 认知的承诺0只是一个纲领性的东西, 它本身对语言理论的具体研究原则和方法并不起支配作用, 对语言描写的内容和形式也未作具体的要求。因此, 尽管乔姆斯基的生成语法、杰肯道夫的概念语义学、赫德森的词语法与兰格克、雷科夫等人的认知语言学都许下认知的承诺, 但前者与后者代表的却是两个极端, 所以前者也就不属于今天公认的认知语言学。 认知语言学主要包括雷科夫、兰格克、菲尔莫(C. Fillmore) 、约翰逊(M. Johnson) 、杰拉茨(D. Geeraerts) 、福科尼耶(G. Fauconnier) 以及塔尔米(L. Talmy) 等人的语言学理论或方法。它认为自然语言是人类心智的产物, 其组织原则与其他认知领域中的组织原则没有差别。语言作为人类认知的一个领域, 与其他认知领域密切相关, 并且本身也是心理、文化、社会、生态等因素相互作用的反映。语言结构依赖并反映概念的形成过程, 而概念的形成过程又以我们自身的经验为基础, 即是说, 语言不是一个由任意符号组成的系统, 其结构与人类的概念知识、身体经验以及话语的功能相关, 并以它们为理据。语言单位( 如词、短语、句子) 是通过范畴化来实现的, 而范畴化通常以典型( prototype) 为基础, 并且涉及隐喻和转喻过程。语言单位的意义以身体经验为基础, 其描写需参照相关的认知结构, 如通俗模型( folk models) 、文化模型( cultural models) 以及认知模型( cognitive models) 。把语言使用置于人类经验基础之上的最重要结果之一, 就是要首先强调意义的研究。正如维尔茨比卡(Wierzbicka 1988: 1) 指出: / 语言是一个整合的系统, 在这个系统中一切都通力协作, 传递意义) ) ) 词、语言结构以及言外手段( 包括语调) 。0费斯米尔( Fesmire 1994: 150) 也指出, 认知语言学摆脱了主流生成语言学的传统, / 尽力解决人类是如何理解自己世界的意义这一问题0, 并且把自己/ 置于人类经验这一潮流中, 而不是纯粹的形式王国里0, 因此, 认知语言学/ 发展了一套人类理解的生态理论0。简言之, / 认知语言学明确地承诺要把意义的身体维度、文化维度以及想象维度( imaginative dimension) 结合起来0。很明显, 意义是认知语言学研究的重要内容, 而隐喻就成了认知语言学研究的焦点。语言学也就不再是对语言内部特征的一种自足的解释, 而是揭示和解释人类认知的一种有力工具。 据上论述, 我们大致可明确认知语言学的研究目标: 寻找不能脱离形体的概念知识的经验证据, 探索概念系统、身体经验与语言结构之间的关系以及语言、意义和认知之间的关系, 即所谓的/ 关系问题0( the relationship question) , 发现人类认知或概念知识的实际内容, 从而最终揭示人类语言的共性、语言与认知之间的关系以及人类认知的奥秘。显然, 认知语言学的这一宏伟目标与当今人类最感兴趣的四大课题之一/ 揭示人类智能的奥秘0完全一致。 三、认知语言学的理论原则 认知语言学中虽有不同的理论方法, 但它们在很大程度上是相互一致的, 具有共同的理论原则。兰格克( 1987: 2) 曾把认知语言学的理论原则概括为三个重要主张: 第一, 语义结构并不是普遍的, 在很大程度上因语言而异。语义结构建立在约定俗成的意象( conventional image) 基础之上, 其描写与知识结构有关。第二, 语法或句法并不构成一个自主的表征形式层次, 相反, 语法实际上具有符号性, 存在于语义结构的规约符号化中。第三, 语法与词汇之间没有意义上的区别。词汇、形态和句法形成一个符号结构的连续统, 这些符号结构虽因不同的参数有别, 但可以任意划分为不同的成分。雷科夫从更基本的层次阐述了认知语言学的理论原则。不过, 他是用/ 承诺0 ( commit2 ments) 来谈的。他( 1990: 3) 认为, 认知语言学有 两个根本承诺: 第一, 概括的承诺: 对支配人类语言各个方面的一般原则进行描写; 第二, 认知的承诺: 从语言学以及其他学科出发, 使对语言的解释与有关心智和大脑的一般知识一致。当然, 兰格克和雷科夫提出的理论原则只代表两家之言, 并未囊括认知范式中所有的基本原则。笔者认为, 至少有六个基本原则可以把认知语言学中的不同理论方法联系起来: 1) 概念语义原则 意义等同于概念化( conceptualization) , 即心理经验的各种结构或过程, 而不是可能世界中的真值条件: 一个表达式的意义就是在说话人或听话人的大脑里激活的概念, 更为具体地说, 意义存在于人类对世界的解释中, 它具有主观性, 体现了以人类为宇宙中心的思想, 反映了主导的文化内涵、具体文化的交往方式以及世界的特征。这一原则表明, 意义的描写涉及词与大脑的关系, 而不是词与世界之间的直接关系。 2) 百科语义原则 词及更大的语言单位是进入无限知识网络的入口。对一个语言表达式的意义要进行全面的解释, 通常需要考虑意象( 视觉的和非视觉的) 、隐喻、心理模型以及对世界的朴素理解等。因此, 一个词的意义单靠孤立的词典似的定义一般来说是不能解决问题的, 必须依赖百科知识方可达到目的。 3) 典型范畴原则 范畴并不是由标准) 属性模型( criterial2at2 tribute models) 定义的, 也不是由必要和充分特征定义的(Lakoff 1987; Taylor 1989) ; 相反, 范畴是围绕典型、家族成员相似性, 范畴中各成员之间的主观关系组织起来的。 4) 语法性判断的渐进原则 语法性判断涉及范畴化。一个话语的语法性或可接受性并不是二分的, 即要么可接受, 要么不可接受, 而是渐进的。因此, 语法性判断是渐进的, 并且同语境、语义以及语法规则密切相关。认知语言学家并不像生成语法学家那样, 要把语法写成是一部生成一种语言中所有并且是唯一合乎语法的句子那样的语法, 因为语法性判断具有渐进性、可变性以及语境的依赖性, 要实现生成语法学家所期望的目标显然十分艰难。 5) 语言与其他认知机制相关原则 认知语言学之所以为认知语言学, 是因为它要在一般的认知中寻找语言现象的类似物。认知语言学家积极吸收心理学关于人类范畴化、注意以及记忆等的研究成果来丰富自己的理论, 从而使认知语言学更加具有活力。由此可见, 语言与其他认知机制具有密切的关系。

小学生语言文字规范意识和应用能力的培养方案.doc

2018-2019学年度第二学期 学生语言文字规范意识和应用能力的培养方案 一、指导思想 为了全面贯彻《中华人民共和国义务教育法》精神，深入宣传实施《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》，在学校教育教学和各项活动中，推广使用全国通用的普通话，正确使用祖国的语言文字，促进我校推广普通话和语言文字规范化工作向纵深发展，进一步提高全校学生语言规范意识和“推普”意识，努力提高每一个学生普通话的水平，形成说普通话写规范字的良好风气，养成说普通话的良好风尚，制定学生普通话培训计划。 二、工作目标 通过普通话培训、宣传活动进一步提高全校学生生对推广普通话重要意义的认识，提高学生普通话水平，形成一种自觉学习普通话、使用普通话的良好氛围。 三、主要工作 （一）加大宣传力度 加大使用普通话的宣传力度，在校园内适当的地方悬挂或粘贴宣传使用普通话的永久性标语。在学生中开展形式多样、富有实效的语言文字规范化宣传教育活动，引导学生关注社会文化生活，监督、评测语言文字的社会应用，并面向社会做好宣传、咨询和服务工作，尤其要充分利用普通话宣传周活动的开展，让讲普通话和写规范字深入人心。 学校宣传栏和壁报要开辟永久性“推普园地”，按时更换内

容，使“推普工作”成为学校工作不可缺少的一部分。要围绕主题加大宣传力度，使全校学生意识到推广普通话，实现语言文字规范化对促进经济发展、提高公民素质、维护国家统一和增强中华民族凝聚力等方面的重要意义，积极推进我校语言文字工作规范化，为构建和谐校园，促进学校发展服务。 （二）把普通话日常培训与日常教育教学相结合 学习的目的全在于运用，学生日常的课堂学习是学习和运用普通话的最好实践。要掌握好普通话，必须结合日常工作不断运用，在运用中吸取新知识，在学习——实践——学习中不断提高自己，校园内一律说普通话，使普通话真正成为“校园语言”。 （三）加强检查评估、注重资料收集 加强学生在学校普及普通话用字规范化工作的检查评估。一是将这项工作纳入学生个人评估指标体系和团队活动；二是列入学生素质评估的内容。 进一步规范推广普通话工作，要求全校学生在校内所有活动中一律使用普通话，使普通话真正成为我校的校园语言。 注重过程性资料、文档收集。 四、学生语言文字能力培训要求 1.在课堂上能专心听讲，做好听课笔记。 2.课堂内外讨论问题,能听出讨论的焦点,并有针对性地发表意见。 3.乐于参与讨论,敢于发表自己的意见。 4.能根据交流的对象和场合,做简单的发言。

语言文字规范知识手册范本

语言文字规知识手册 1．推普周简介 为了推进国家通用语言文字的规和普及，经国务院批准，从1998年起，每年9月份第三周为“全国推广普通话宣传周”。通过开展推普周活动，在全国围大力宣传国家语言文字方针政策及《国家通用语言文字法》，大力推广和普及普通话，积极推行规汉字，在全社会营造“说普通话，写规字，做文明人”的良好氛围。 2．为什么要开展“全国推广普通话宣传周”活动？ 我国是多民族、多方言的国家。共同语的普及程度是国家和民族文明程度的一个重要标志。新中国成立以来，推广普通话工作已开展40多年并取得很大成绩，但全社会普及普通话的目标尚未实现，还不能适应改革开放和社会主义现代化建设对于普及民族共同语的客观需要。因此，大力推行、积极普及全国通用的普通话，既是当前经济文化建设和社会发展的迫切需求，也是各族人民的热切愿望，是符合全国人民根本利益的。开展“全国推广普通话宣传周”活动对提高广大干部、群众的推普参与意识和语言文字规意识，进一步推动推广普通话工作和整个语言文字工作向纵深发展，具有重要意义。 3．“全国推广普通话宣传周活动”的宗旨是什么？ “全国推广普通话宣传周”活动的宗旨是：以党的十六大精神为指导，通过多种形式的宣传活动，向全社会广泛宣传大力推广普通话对于社会主义现代化建设的必要性、迫切性，进一步提高广大干部群众的语言规意识和“推普”参与意识，在全社会形成说普通话的风气，推动推广普通话工作向纵深发展。 4．国家如何开展推普周活动？ 国家专门成立了“全国推广普通话宣传周活动领导小组”（由教育部、国家语委牵头，办公室设在教育部），统一部署和指导全国推普周活动。按照惯例，除了在全国围组织开展推普周宣传活动外，

学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案

学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案 各位读友大家好！你有你的木棉，我有我的文章，为了你的木棉，应读我的文章！若为比翼双飞鸟，定是人间有情人！若读此篇优秀文，必成天上比翼鸟！ 学生语言文字规范意识和能力培养方案方案一我校把推广普及普通话作为实施素质教育，提高教育教学质量的一项重要内容来抓；把提高学生语言文字规范意识和语言文字应用能力的要求纳入学生的培养目标，作为教育、教学和学生技能训练的基本内容；还把语言文字规范意识的培养纳入学校课程标准，在学校培养目标中明确规定：“学校全面推广国家通用的普通话（以《汉语拼音方案》为准），推行规范汉字（以《汉字简化方案》为准）。目前，高等学校大学生的语言文字水平呈普遍下降趋势。校园里，无论是海报、宣传栏，还是学生个人请假条、作业、实习报告、毕业论文等，错字病句、生造词语、不规范汉字、行文晦涩、逻辑混用能力。构建语言文字应用能力的教学与实践体系。学校是教育活动的主体，提高学生能力是学校的重要教学任务。语言文字能力作为学生工作、生活、学习的基本能力，必须要得到提高和强化。基于学生对语言文字运用能力的要求，结合学校课程教学，我们可以构建一个相对独立的语言文字应用能力的教学与实践体系。教学内容上主要由两个方面构成，一是语言应用说，二是文字应用写，也就是书面表达和口语表达两个方面，从手段上分为校内实践和校外实践。校内首先可以通过开设相关的一系列

课程来实现。针对不同的专业岗位需求，要求专业必须开设与此相关的专业课程。对语言文字应用方面没有特别要求的专业必须开设选修课程，比如《普通话》、《演讲与口才》、《常见应用文写作》、《基础写作》等课程。其次，学校可以搭建更多的语言实践平台，让大部分学生有机会参与，目前大部分学校都会举行辩论赛、演讲比赛、职业生涯规划大赛等，但是参与面不广，所以扩大活动参与面很重要。以辩论赛为例，通常先由系部选拔，然后再择优推荐参加学校比赛。参与的同学也最多几十个。我们可以把这种活动推广到班级，要求每个班所有同学参与进来，然后择优一级一级推荐。这样就能实现其实践参与的普遍性。各系部开展普通话培训，将语言文字规范化渗透到教育教学的各个环节，加强学生普通话训练和书写规范化训练，提高学生文化素质和文化修养”。学校规定，教师在课堂教学中使用规范的普通话。学校教师之间、教师学生之间对话交流使用规范的普通话，在网络交流以及平时领导开会、做报告时，都使用规范的普通话，尽管人际交往中存在着口语、俗语、甚至口头禅，但都统一采用标准的汉民族语言文字，努力使交流顺畅，不存在语言沟通上的障碍。切实发挥语言课的主渠道作用，加强对学生语言文字应用能力的培养。并将语言文字规范化渗透到教育教学的各个环节，加强学生普通话训练和书写规范化训练，提高学生文化素质和文化修养。从学校实际出发，我校就各系部分别从口语表达、写作，课内训练等方面制定学生语言文字能力要求和各项培训工作，并认

认知语言学

认知语言学 一、教学目的和要求 本课程是语言学及应用语言学专业硕士研究生的学位基础课。本课程通过介绍国外认知语言学的基本理论和分析方法，使硕士研究生了解当代语言研究中功能学派的基本语言观，学会在句法、语义分析的基础上通过心理认知角度来解释语言现象的能力，为学位论文的撰写打下坚实的基础。本课程在硕士研究生第二学年的第一学期开设。教学上主要采取课堂讲授的方法，每次课后安排一定的时间答疑并进行课堂讨论。 二、基本教学内容 1、什么是认知语言学 （1）认知语言学的兴起 （2）认知语言学的特征 （3）认知语言学的观念 2、范畴化问题（上） （1）概念范畴的本质属性 （2）范畴化的原型理论 （3）基本层次概念 3、范畴化问题（下） （1）认知模式与范畴化 （2）词语的多义范畴 （3）语言客体的范畴化 4、概念隐喻和隐喻概念系统（上） （1）Lakoff的“隐喻认知观” （2）概念隐喻的典型实例分析 5、概念隐喻和隐喻概念系统（下） （1）结构隐喻 （2）方位隐喻 （3）本体隐喻 6、意象和意象图式（上） （1）Langacker的“意象” （2）“意象”的典型实例分析 7、意象和意象图式（下） （1）Johnson和Lakoff的“意象图式” （2）“意象图式”的界定 8、关于语言符号的任意性和象似性 （1）索绪尔关于“语言符号任意性”的观点

（2）功能学派关于“句法象似性”的观念 9、复杂性象似动因 （1）形容词的“级” （2）名词的“数” （3）偏正结构 10、独立性象似动因 （1）关于“名词融合”的问题 （2）关于“独立事件编码为独立子句”的倾向 11、次序象似动因 （1）时间顺序原则（PTS） （2）时间范围原则（PTSC） 12、对称象似动因 （1）语言的线性原则和对称表达 （2）对称象似动因的实例分析 13、重叠象似动因 （1）词语重叠的象似动因 （2）动词拷贝的象似动因 14、动因的竞争及象似性的减损 （1）象似原则和经济原则的竞争 （2）动因竞争的典型实例分析 15、认知语言学与汉语研究（上） （1）常规关系与认知化 （2）词类范畴的家属相似性 16、认知语言学与汉语研究（下） （1）“有界”与“无界” （2）空间范畴与空间关系 三、主要教学参考书 F.Ungerer and H.J.Schmid著，陈治安、文旭导读《认知语言学入门》，外语教学与研究出版社，2001年。 刘润清、胡壮麟《认知语言学概论》，外语教学与研究出版社，2001年。 束定芳主编《语言的认知研究》，上海外语教育出版社，2004年。 张敏《认知语言学与汉语名词短语》，中国社会科学出版社，1998年。 石毓智《语法的认知语义基础》，江西教育出版社，2000年。 四、授课教师：吴为善 五、总学时：54学时

语言文字规范标准内容

国家语言文字工作委员会语言文字规范（标准） 管理办法 国家部委规章。是教育部和国家语委为了加强语言文字规范（标准）的管理，确保规范（标准）的科学性和权威性，根据相关法律法规的规定而制定，2001年8月27日发布并实施。《办法》共九章三十六条，涵盖规范（标准）的研制计划、研制、送审稿的审定、审批、发布、复审、实施、建档及档案管理等各个方面，是开展语言文字规范（标准）工作的规范性文件。 为了进一步加强语言文字规范标准建设，逐步建立起科学、有序的语言文字管理机制，以适应新世纪语言文字工作发展的需要，现将《国家语言文字工作委员会语言文字规范（标准）管理办法》《国家语言文字工作委员会语言文字规范（标准）审定委员会章程》印发给你们，请遵照执行。 办法全文 第一章总则 第一条为了加强语言文字规范（标准）的管理，确保规范（标准）的科学性和权威性，根据《中华人民共和国标准化法》和《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》的有关规定，制定本办法。 第二条教育部（国家语言文字工作委员会〔简称“国家语委”〕）是语言文字规范（标准）主管部门，负责语言文字规范（标准）管理工作。 第二章规范（标准）的研制计划 第三条编制语言文字规范（标准）的研制计划，应以国家

语言文字工作方针政策为指导，以社会发展需要和语言文字规范标准体系等为依据。 第四条国家语委科研规划领导小组负责制定语言文字规范（标准）中长期规划。根据规划，每年8月在征求国家语委语言文字规范（标准）审定委员会（简称“审委会”）和有关专家学者意见的基础上，提出下年度规范（标准）研制计划，报国家语委科研规划领导小组批准；其中的国家标准须于每年9月底前将研制计划项目草案和项目任务书报国家标准主管部门。 第五条规范（标准）计划项目执行过程中，如有必要可进行调整。调整的原则是： 确属急需制定的项目，可以增补； 确属特殊情况，可以对计划项目的内容进行调整； 确属不宜制定的项目，可以按规定的报批程序撤销。 第六条规范（标准）研制计划项目的调整，须报国家语委科研规划领导小组审批。属于国家标准的，还须报国家标准主管部门批准。未获批准者，应照原计划进行研制。 第三章规范（标准）的研制 第七条国家语委科研规划领导小组办公室（简称“科研办”）按照《国家语言文字工作委员会科研项目管理办法》负责组织项目的前期科研工作，督促规范（标准）研制组按计划完成任务。 第八条研制组应对所研制规范（标准）的质量负责。本着科学、严谨的态度，在深入研究的基础上，参照GB1《标准化工作导则》的规定完成规范（标准）征求意见稿、研制报告（国家标准称为“编制说明”）及有关附件，并通过研讨会、信函等方式向专家和社会相关部门、行业广泛征求意见。研制组的征求意见计划应事先报科研办同意。