COLLOCATIONS AND SECOND LANGUAGE USE

Studia Linguistica

Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 123 (2006) JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

Instytut Filologii Angielskiej

COLLOCATIONS AND SECOND LANGUAGE USE

1. Introduction

Collocations have recently received increased attention in applied linguistic studies; however, still relatively little is known about the way in which colloca-tions are used by speakers of foreign languages. This article provides an over-view of the research which has been carried out in this area, and makes some suggestions as to the directions for future investigations.

Collocations are understood here as word combinations such as bitterly cold or commit murder, that is phrases which are more restricted than free combina-tions (very cold) and less restricted than idioms (get the cold shoulder). Al-though this is, of course, a very rough definition, it will suffice for the purpose of the present discussion; any attempt at a more precise description would be the topic for a separate article, as collocations are notoriously difficult to define and different (often slightly contradictory) definitions proliferate in the literature. This overview will be restricted to studies that directly address the issue of using collocations by learners of English as a second or other language. Research dealing more specifically with other types of multi-word units, such as idioms or proverbs, will not be discussed here. Neither is there space to present psycholin-guistic aspects relevant to the topic (for an overview, see Le?niewska 2006b). 2. Approaches to assessing collocational knowledge

Information on the collocational aspects of L2 competence can come from vari-ous sources. There are several ways of directly investigating the use of colloca-tions by learners. Data on how L2 learners actually use collocations can be ob-tained by analyzing the language production of learners, either written or spo-ken. In comprehensive measures, particular samples of L2 writing or speech are analyzed with respect to all the collocations which occur in the available texts. Another method is to use corpora of L2 writing, in which case it is possible to analyze only specific, pre-selected collocations as they occur in a range of texts

96

JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

(e.g. Granger 1998). By obtaining concordances for the investigated items, the collocational patterns of L2 texts can be compared to those in texts produced by native speakers.

Another possibility is to elicit the collocational decisions of learners for spe-cific test items – in which case a preselected group of collocations is the focus of research, which makes it much easier to compare the results for various subjects and groups (e.g. Biskup 1992; Bahns and Eldaw 1993; Granger 1998). This can be done in the form of “open” elicitation procedures, such as gap-filling tasks, or in the form of closed tasks (multiple choice) or acceptability judgments.

Other testing techniques can be used as indirect measures of collocational knowledge. For example, psycholinguistic tests based on word association pat-terns could be used to indirectly investigate the structure of the mental lexicon of learners with respect to collocational links. The information obtained from all the above sources can be related to native speaker standards, and/or compared to other aspects of learners’ lexical ability (for example, to vocabulary size).

The sources of information enumerated above differ greatly with respect to what is being tested: in the case of the analysis of texts it is the actual language production; in the case of elicitation procedures it is the learners’ knowledge as evidenced by their judgment/introspection; in the case of association tests it is some manifestation of the underlying mental system.

Below, the discussion of findings from relevant studies is organized under several headings which reflect the statements that are made most often about the use of collocations by EFL learners: firstly, that collocations may be a source of difficulty even at very advanced levels (this is why they are often discussed with reference to the concept of near-native competence); secondly, that there is a specific type of semi-restricted collocations that causes particular difficulties; and thirdly, that deviations from native-speaker norms in the case of collocations often have a covert character and do not manifest themselves as errors.

3. Collocations as a source of difficulty for advanced learners

Collocations are generally considered to be a problem area in the teaching and learning of foreign languages, and many research studies provide evidence which seems to support this view. Among such studies is Howarth’s (1996) book-length investigation into the phraseology of non-native speakers’ writing. Howarth’s investigation was inspired by his observation that otherwise very advanced students make one particular type of errors in writing, namely collo-cational errors, which, according to him, “can lead to a lack of precision and obscure the clarity required in academic communication” (Howarth 1996: ix).

Waller (1993) has explored the characteristics of near-native proficiency as they demonstrate themselves in writing. The method of the research was based on collecting texts written by both native speakers of English and by near-native speakers of English and giving them to native speakers to find “errors”, or in-stances of unconventional usage. The evaluators commented on a variety of problems, pertaining both to syntactic and lexical usage, as well as to the rhe-

Collocations and Second Language Use97 torical and cultural aspects of the texts. The writing was also analyzed statisti-cally for lexical sophistication, variation, and density. In many cases, the raters could not distinguish between native and near-native texts. Among “lexical problems”, collocational errors formed the largest category. What is even more interesting, however, is that problems in collocational usage were found to be restricted to the texts written by non-native speakers, whereas other problems (e.g. syntactic errors, or lexical errors other than collocational) were found in both groups of texts. This means that, of all the features that could be pinpointed about the non-native speakers’ texts, collocations emerge as the most tangible marker of non-nativeness, “a foreign accent in writing” (Waller 1993: 224).

Similar conclusions can be drawn from a study by K?llkvist (1998), in which she analyzed the types of collocational errors made by advanced Swedish learn-ers of English. She found that errors in the use of verbs involve mostly semanti-cally general verbs such as make, put, get. Apparently, these “high-utility”verbs, which are simple, frequent and easy to learn are often overused by learn-ers. The most common type of error was, in K?llkvist’s study, that of overexten-sion, which resulted in awkward collocations, pointing to the unawareness of usage restrictions on the part of the students. The reason for that seems to be the fact that general verbs, such as make or get, are highly polysemous. Many of the infelicitous collocations reported in K?llkvist’s study are not semantically or syntactically incorrect, but they do not conform to usage restrictions (e.g. make something up to date instead of bring or it will get usual instead of become). Because high-frequency verbs are very polysemous, the restrictions on their use, which are not predictable from their meaning, may be perceived as highly arbi-trary by learners. K?llkvist also found that the learners misuse transitive verbs more often, which is not all that surprising, given that intransitive verbs are not usually followed by a direct object, so fewer collocational restrictions apply to them.

Channell (1980) found that advanced students of English, who were re-quested to mark the acceptable collocations in a collocational “grid”, made some errors by selecting collocations which are unacceptable in English; more impor-tantly, they also failed to mark a large number of acceptable collocations, de-spite their familiarity with the individual lexical items in question. “This shows how learners fail to realize the potential even of words they know well, because they only use them in a limited number of collocations of which they are sure”(Channell 1980: 120). This view has been corroborated by later studies of learner language, including corpus studies, which will be discussed below. Similar findings were obtained by Granger (1998), who also used the type of test in which subjects were asked to mark acceptable collocations.

Arnaud and Savignon (1997) compared the knowledge of rare words and complex lexical units in advanced ESL learners of French L1, and found that the learners performed better in the case of rare words than complex phrases. Such findings, while confirming the intuitive impression that collocability is a diffi-cult area in foreign language learning, have to be interpreted with some caution as far as the precise statement of the degree of collocational difficulties is con-cerned. In a much-quoted study, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) found that the knowl-edge of collocations lags behind the knowledge of general vocabulary. They

98

JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

argue that collocations present a major problem for advanced learners, therefore the knowledge of collocations does not expand at the same rate as the acquisi-tion of individual lexical items. The concept of this “lag” is rather dubious, however: if collocational knowledge is one of the elements of word knowledge, then it is rather obvious that there are many more words in the lexicon than just those on which “full” information is available (if full information is possible at all).

4. Restrictedness and difficulty

On the basis of his analysis of verb + direct object collocations in a corpus of advanced learners’ academic writing, Howarth (1998: 36) claims that the most problematic area for learners in terms of collocational knowledge is made up by the collocations which are on the borderline between free combinations and restricted ones: “It may be claimed that the problem facing the non-native writer or speaker is knowing which of a range of collocational options are restricted and which are free”. Unlike idioms and more restricted collocations, the “somewhat restricted” word combinations are not learned as wholes. “It appears that the ability to manipulate such clusters [collocations which are partly re-stricted] is a sign of true native speaker competence and is a useful indicator of degrees of proficiency across the boundary between non-native and native com-petence” (Howarth 1998: 38).

Linguists and teachers, says Howarth, tend to concentrate on the two ex-tremes of the collocational spectrum: the free, rule-governed combinations on the one hand, and fixed, stable multi-word units, such as idioms, on the other. What deserves more attention, Howarth (1998: 42) argues, is the “large and complex middle ground of restricted collocations”. He states that “…learners’difficulties lie chiefly in this central area, since idioms and free collocations are, phraseologically, largely unproblematic. The greatest challenge lies in differen-tiating between combinations that are free and those which are somehow limited in substitutability” (Howarth 1998: 42).

This claim fits in with certain implications of the psycholinguistic research, namely, that fixed multi-word units, such as idioms, may be less problematic for learners than subtler kinds of restrictions. Collocations are semantically trans-parent, while idioms are often opaque and/or figurative. When encountered in the foreign language for the first time, the former category will not attract the attention of the learner, who has no problem with the comprehension of such collocations. Idiomatic expressions, on the other hand, attract attention and therefore are perceived as salient. They may be more easily memorized as the result of the initial difficulty in interpreting their meaning (see also Howarth 1996: 55, who quotes results from studies on figurative language which support this view). Collocations, therefore, are difficult because they are word combina-tions which are not completely “free” and not completely “fixed” either. It is the complex nature of restrictedness that is a problem. The explanation offered by Howarth (1996: 160) is as follows:

Collocations and Second Language Use99 [The learners] are perhaps not aware that figurative senses are more restricted in colloca-bility than are literal senses and therefore require greater precision in their use. It seems that learners may be familiar with many of the verbs characteristic of academic discourse, such as adopt, follow or reach, without understanding how the phenomenon of restricted collocability is related to the specific sub-senses of these verbs rather than to the verbs themselves in all their uses.

This statement has been corroborated by the findings of Nesselhauf (2003), who, after a careful analysis of the verb-noun collocations in texts written by German learners of English, found that the highest rate of mistakes occurred in the combinations with a medium degree of restriction (such as the combinations with the verbs exert, perform, or reach, where the verb can occur with a wide, but nevertheless resticted, range of nouns). The least problematic of all verb-noun combinations turned out to be the ones belonging to a category more re-stricted than the one described above, but less restricted than idiomatic expres-sions (such as pay attention, run a risk). Nesselhauf (2003: 234) therefore con-cludes that “collocations with a low degree of restriction are the most difficult kind of combinations for the learners”.

5. The “hidden” aspects of advanced L2 use

An important characteristic of advanced learners’ L2 production is that devia-tions from native-speaker norms may be very subtle, and do not often take the form of explicit errors. Advanced L2 users may produce phrases and expressions which, considered individually, are correct, in the sense that they do not violate the L2 rules of morphology, syntax, semantics, etc. However, the cumulative effect of the use of certain phrases rather than others may give the impression of non-nativeness. For example, there is nothing wrong with the phrase very inter-esting; however, if a learner uses very as the only adjectival and adverbial inten-sifier, the overall effect in a piece of writing will attract attention as the case of the overuse of very and – at the same time – underuse of other potential intensi-fiers. This rather simplistic example points to two important issues. Firstly, error analysis has some limitations as far as the analysis of advanced L2 production is concerned, because the features of language use which cumulatively may be responsible for a non-native character of the language need not necessarily be identified as errors when analyzed individually. Secondly, certain features of advanced L2 use are more likely to affect the style and register of a text rather than the straightforward correctness at the syntactic/semantic level.

The research tool which seems best suited to finding such hidden aspects of L2 use is the statistical analysis of corpora of texts. DeCock et al. (1998) used computer corpora and specialized software to automatically extract recurring word combinations (taking into consideration combinations of two, three, four and five words) from a corpus of texts written by EFL learners of French L1. Apart from giving a general overview of the use of formulae by learners and native speakers, the authors investigated one specific kind of formulae in more detail – namely, the so-called vagueness tags, or those instances of phrases such as whatever, and so on etc. which fulfill a specific pragmatic function (which

100

JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

means that such phrases cannot be automatically retrieved from the corpus, be-cause the researcher must judge whether the phrase indeed functions as a vague-ness tag). What emerges from the data is statistically a highly significant un-deruse of vagueness tags by learners – native speakers use almost four times as many vagueness tags as the learners. There is only one striking exception: the phrase and so on, which appears nine times more often in the learner corpus than in the native speaker corpus.

Lorenz (1998, 1999) and Granger (1998) investigated adjective intensifica-tion in corpora of English texts written by native speakers and by learners of German and French L1 backgrounds, respectively, and found various patterns of underuse and overuse of adjective intensification. Lorenz (1998, 1999) found that the learners use more adjective intensifiers. In his analysis, he took into account any lexical item or phrase that was found to intensify an adjective, rather than focusing on a pre-determined set of adjectives and intensifiers. In an attempt to find the reasons behind the observed pattern of overuse, Lorenz ana-lyzed the kinds of adjectives which were intensified most often. They turned out to be roughly the same for both groups, with important and good being intensi-fied most often. Therefore, it could not be argued that adjective intensification had a different function for the two groups. Another possible explanation – that of a cultural difference between the groups – was not borne out either. Although the native speakers in the study were British and could therefore stereotypically be argued to be prone to understatement, it was not found that the learners over-used maximizers and boosters more than minimizers. The most plausible expla-nation is that because of a generally more limited vocabulary, the learners used adjective intensification to make the adjectives they have more “versatile”. However, the corpus provided evidence to the contrary: it was the learners who used more variants along a semantic scale, such as tiny, gigantic, minute etc. Lorenz (1998: 59) explains the overuse of intensifiers in terms of a more general tendency for a kind of linguistic “over-zealousness” on the part of the learners who, anxious to make an impression and conscious of the limitations of their linguistic repertoire, “… might feel a greater need than native speakers to stress the importance – and the relevance – of what they have to say”.

Granger (1998) investigated the use of adverbs ending in -ly and functioning as amplifiers of adjectives in the French sub-corpus of ICLE and in a native speaker corpus (all the words ending in -ly were automatically retrieved and then manually sorted). The comparison revealed a statistically very significant un-deruse of amplifiers in the non-native speaker corpus, both in terms of the num-ber of tokens and types – a finding which is in direct contrast to that of Lorenz (1998, 1999). The most striking differences occurred in the case of three par-ticular amplifiers: completely, totally (both overused) and highly (underused). Granger (1998: 148) observes that one of the possible reasons for the wide range of completely and totally in learner writing – their use as “safe bets”, or all-round amplifiers – is that “they have direct translation equivalents which are very frequent in French – complètement and totalement – and which display similarly few collocational restrictions. There may be an equally feasible inter-lingual explanation for learners’ underuse of highly, whose literal equivalent, hautement, is only used in formal language and is relatively much less frequent.

Collocations and Second Language Use101 It is striking that the few combinations that the learners actually used – such as highly developed / civilized / specialized / probable – translate very nicely into French”.

Certain observations regarding the “hidden” aspects of language learners’collocational competence can also be made on the basis of studies involving elicitation procedures. For example, I have found that very advanced Polish learners of English, when asked to intensify adjectives by means of adverbial boosters, made no errors and used the same words as native speaker controls. However, in quantitative terms, the Polish group significantly underused re-stricted intensifiers (ones that combine with a limited number of adjectives, such as glaringly) and overused “general-purpose” intensifiers such as extremely, totally, strongly, etc. (Le?niewska 2006a). These findings are in agreement with Granger’s conclusion, mentioned above, that learners are more likely to use “all-purpose” intensifiers than restricted ones.

6. The underlying mechanism of language production

While many interesting observations have been made about the way in which EFL learners use collocations, it is still uncertain how the language production of learners differs from that of native speakers as far as collocations are con-cerned. Sinclair (1991) made an influential distinction between two modes of language production: the idiom principle (retrieval of chunks) and the open--choice principle (creating new combinations of words in keeping with syntactic and semantic rules). It was considered a possibility that language learners may operate more according to the open-choice principle than the idiom principle. This possibility has not found much support from empirical studies, however. Suggestions have been put forward (Weinert 1995; DeCock et al. 1998) that learners use the idiom principle to a comparable extent as the native speakers, but that the chunks they use are different. DeCock et al. (1998), in the above-mentioned analysis of a subcorpus of ICLE, find that advanced learners use “prefabs” just as much or even more than native speakers. Among the multi-word combinations listed by the researchers there are many phrases in common to the two populations, although they occur with different frequencies.“Consequently, they can be said to apply the idiom principle, but the chunks they use (1) are not necessarily the same as those used by native speakers, (2) are not used with the same frequency, (3) have different syntactic uses, and (4) fulfill different pragmatic functions” (DeCock et al. 1998: 78).

In her study of the French sub-corpus of ICLE, Granger found that the learn-ers significantly overuse a certain type of sentence builders which function as macro-organizers in discourse, such as I think that…, I truly believe that…, I would say that…, we must not forget that…, etc. “Clearly then, while the for-eign-soundingness of learners’ productions has generally been related to the lack of prefabs, it can also be due to an excessive use of them” (Granger 1998: 155). According to Granger, the overuse of familiar prefabs can be explained in terms of Dechert’s (1984: 227) notion of the “islands of reliability” or “fixed anchor-

102

JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

age points, i.e. prefabricated formulaic stretches of verbal behaviour whose lin-guistic and paralinguistic form and function need not be ‘worked upon’”. Be-cause of the demanding nature of foreign language production, learners seem to rely on familiar expressions, which, recalled as wholes, contribute to fluency.

While there is no empirical support for the view that the learners use fewer formulaic expressions, there is evidence that they use fewer restricted colloca-tions. Granger (1998: 151) notes that the learners seem to be using amplifiers “more as building bricks than as parts of prefabricated sections”, producing acceptable collocations which are often free combinations rather than those typical of native use.

The most significant findings concerning the proportion of conventional lan-guage in native speaker and learner production come from Howarth’s (1996) study of English academic texts written by natives and non-natives (postgradu-ate students at the University of Leeds, from various L1 backgrounds). The pro-portion of all the verb+direct object collocations which were classified as con-ventional (restricted collocations and idioms) was 38% in the native speaker corpus, and significantly lower (25% on average) in texts written by non-native speakers. Howarth quotes findings by Cowie (1991, 1992) concerning journalis-tic writing in English, where the proportion of collocational “density” was found to be above 40%. This figure, together with Howarth’s data, suggests that there is a stable norm of “mature native phraseological use”, whereas learners’ writing contains fewer restricted collocations.

7. Directions for future research

In future studies, an effort must be made to define collocations and types of collocational errors, as well as constructs such as the “advanced” level of profi-ciency in L2, as precisely as possible, in order to enable a comparison of the results from different studies.

Corpus approaches are invaluable because they make it possible to investi-gate the learners’ actual language production, including patterns of avoidance, underuse or overuse of certain collocations, and the investigation is not limited to a pre-selected group of items. The main problem with corpus approaches is the same as in any investigation of the lexical characteristics of texts: the results may depend on how comparable the texts are in terms of the subject matter, length, time constraints on production, etc. For example, Howarth (1996: 140) observes that learner writing, especially academic writing, is “adulterated”: the learner is likely to draw on a range of phrases and expressions which occur in the sources used. Even if references and direct quotations are removed from the texts in the corpus, as it was done by Howarth in his research, the writing is not exactly the learner’s own output.

The main methodological challenge in studies based on elicitation techniques and judgement tests is establishing a valid selection of collocations to be tested, which would justify meaningful generalizations about the L2 users’ phrase-ological competence in general.

Collocations and Second Language Use103 It seems that the studies which investigate the phraseological competence of EFL learners most thoroughly are the ones which combine corpus approaches and carefully controlled judgment / elicitation techniques. Granger (1998) com-plemented the above-mentioned corpus study with a test given to French learn-ers of English and to native speakers of English. The test required the subjects to judge the correctness of various combinations of adverbial amplifiers and adjec-tives. The subjects were also asked to indicate the collocations which they per-ceived as the most frequent, which provided an indication of which combina-tions seemed salient to them. It turned out that the learners recognized signifi-cantly fewer combinations as “frequent” than the natives, while marking a greater number of combinations as “correct”. Generally, the type of marked combinations showed that “the learners’ sense of salience is not only weak, but also partly misguided” (Granger 1998: 152).

An important issue which remains to be investigated is the extent of cross-linguistic influence upon the learners’ use of collocations. Some studies (such as Granger 1998; Nesselhauf 2003) provide evidence of the cross-linguistic factor at work. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to ascribe a particular collocational error to the underlying process. Therefore, although instances of collocational errors which show transfer from L1 have been identified by some researchers (e.g. Biskup 1992), it is difficult to assess the overall extent of cross-linguistic influence with respect to collocations. In the case of corpus studies, in order to reach any conclusions about the extent of L1 influence, one needs to take into account a comparable corpus in L1. So far, analyses of the “hidden” aspects of the learners’ use of collocations have not yielded much information on the ex-tent of cross-linguistic influence. DeCock et al. (1998), in the study mentioned above, list three possible reasons for the underuse of vagueness tags by learners: systematic differences in the way vagueness tags are used in French and in Eng-lish, the influence of teaching, and the “lack of contact with native speakers”, without venturing further into the subject. Unfortunately, we do not learn from the article whether there is any evidence of cross-lexical influence playing upon the learners’ use of formula, since the analysis does not include a comparable corpus of texts in French. It is therefore not possible to say whether the overuse of one particular phrase is related to the frequency of occurrence of its equiva-lent in the learners’ mother tongue. As in the case of the study by DeCock et al., Lorenz’s study does not include a comparison between the corpora of native speakers’ and learners’ writing with comparable texts in German, therefore it is difficult to exclude with absolute certainty the possibility that adjectives are generally intensified more often in German, and the overuse of adjective intensi-fication by learners writing in English is due to some kind of cross-linguistic influence. Clearly, in order to answer the question about L1 influence on phra-seology in terms of “hidden” characteristics, the methodology of research would have to include not only the analysis of native and non-native corpora, but also of texts written (preferably by the same subjects) in L1.

The research studies quoted above confirm the difficulty learners have with collocations, and the fact that some aspects of collocational knowledge seem to elude even very advanced foreign language learners, whose proficiency in the L2 may otherwise be native-like. However, the extent of such problems has not

104

JUSTYNA LE?NIEWSKA

yet been convincingly quantified, and the very possibility of such quantification is rather remote. Therefore, until more is known, statements such as “collocations are the most difficult aspects of vocabulary knowledge” need to be made with caution.

References

Arnaud P.J.L., Savignon S.S. (1997): Rare Words, Complex Lexical Units and the Advanced Learner [w:] J. Coady i T. Huckin red. Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition: A Ra-tionale for Pedagogy, Cambridge, s. 157–173.

Bahns J., Eldaw M. (1993): Should We Teach EFL Students Collocations?, …System”, t. XXI, Elsevier, s. 101–114.

Biskup D. (1992): L1 Influence on Learners’ Renderings of English Collocations: A Pol-ish/English Empirical Study [w:] P.J.L. Arnaud, H. Béjoint red. Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, Basingstoke, London, s. 85–93.

Channell J. (1980): Applying Semantic Theory to Vocabulary Teaching, …ELT Journal”, t. XXXV, Oxford, s. 115–122.

Cowie A.P. (1991): Multiword Units in Newspaper Language [w:] S. Granger red. Perspec-tives on the English Lexicon, Louvain-la-Neuve, s. 101–116.

Cowie A.P. (1992): Multi-Word Lexical Units and Communicative Language Teaching [w:] P.J.L. Arnaud, H. Joint red. Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics, Basingstoke, London, s. 1–12.

Dechert H. (1984): Second Language Production: Six Hypotheses [w:] H. Dechert, D. M?hle, M. Raupach red. Second Language Productions, Tübingen, s. 211–230.

DeCock S., Granger S., Leech G., McEnery T. (1998): An Automated Approach to the Phra-sicon of EFL Learners [w:] S. Granger red. Learner English on Computer, London, New York, s. 67–79.

Granger S. (1998): Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and For-mulae [w:] A.P. Cowie red. Phraseology: Theory, Analysis, and Applications, Oxford, s. 145–160.

Howarth P. (1996): Phraseology in English Academic Writing: Some Implications for Lan-guage Learning and Dictionary Making, Tübingen.

Howarth P. (1998): Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency, …Applied Linguistics”, t. XIX, Oxford, s. 24–44.

K?llkvist M. (1998): Lexical Infelicity in English: the Case of Nouns and Verbs [w:] K. Haastrup, A. Viberg red. Perspectives on Lexical Acquisition in a Second Language, Lund, s. 149–174.

Le?niewska J. (2006a): Is Cross-Linguistic Influence a Factor in Advanced EFL Learners’Use of Collocations? [w:] J. Arabski red. Cross-Linguistic Influences in the Second Lan-guage Lexicon, Clevedon, s. 65–77.

Le?niewska J. (2006b): Psycholinguistic Accounts of Collocation [w:] J. Le?niewska,

E. Witalisz red. Language and Identity: English and American Studies in the Age of

Globalization, t. 1, Kraków, s. 83–99.

Lorenz G. (1998): Overstatement in Advanced Learners’ Writing: Stylistic Aspects of Adjec-tive Intensification [w:] S. Granger red. Learner English on Computer, London, New York, s. 53–66.

Lorenz G. (1999): Adjective Intensification – Learners versus Native Speakers: A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing, Amsterdam.

Nesselhauf N. (2003): The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching, …Applied Linguistics”, t. XXIV, Oxford, 223–242.

Sinclair J. (1991): Corpus, Concordance, Collocation, Oxford.

Collocations and Second Language Use105 Waller T. (1993): Characteristics of Near-Native Proficiency in Writing [w:] H. Ringom red.

Near-Native Proficiency in English, Abo, s. 183–293.

Weinert R. (1995): The Role of Formulaic Language in Second Language Acquisition: A Review, …Applied Linguistics”, t. XVI, Oxford, s. 180–205.

S t r e s z c z e n i e

Kolokacja a u?ycie j?zyka obcego

Artyku? po?wi?cony jest przegl?dowi badań empirycznych dotycz?cych u?ywania kolokacji (syntagm konwencjonalnych) przez osoby ucz?ce si?j?zyka angielskiego jako obcego, zw?aszcza na poziomie zaawansowanym. Z przegl?du tego wynikaj? trzy g?ówne wnioski. Po pierwsze, kolokacje to cz?sto problem typowy dla zaawansowanych u?ytkowników j?zyka obcego, których zakres s?ownictwa jest stosunkowo du?y, natomiast nie dorównuje mu po-ziom wiedzy kolokacyjnej. Poniewa? granica pomi?dzy znaczeniem s?owa a jego restryk-cjami kolokacyjnymi jest niewyra?na, zrozumia?e jest przenoszenie asocjacji leksykalnych z j?zyka ojczystego na j?zyk obcy. Po drugie, odchylenia od normy frazeologicznej nie musz?by? postrzegane jako b??dy; mog? mie? bardziej subtelny i cz?sto …ukryty” charakter, wi?c dopiero przy analizie du?ej ilo?ci tekstów okazuje si?, ?e cz?stotliwo??u?ycia pewnych zwi?zków frazeologicznych jest inna ni? w przypadku rodzimych u?ytkowników j?zyka. Po trzecie, zaobserwowane ró?nice wyst?puj?g?ównie w kolokacjach o ?rednim poziomie ??czliwo?ci i niskim poziomie idiomatyczno?ci.

中介语演讲稿

3.1中介语理论产生的历史背景 60年代是对比分析的兴盛时期。70年代初开始衰落,反映了一种历史的必然,因为这种理论方法无论在理论上还是实践上都面临着严重的危机。 因此,语言学家们为语言教师勾画了这样一幅图景:首先,语言学家们通过两种语言系统(L1和L2)的对比,为语言教师提供一个详细的菜单。这个菜单包括两种语言的相同点与不同点。然后,语言教师便依据这些不同点来预测学习者的难点,并据此来编写教学大纲和教材。但是后来的教学研究和实践证明,语言学家的许诺仅仅是一幅理想的图画而已。70年代初,对比分析遭到激烈的批评。如果第二语言学习者产生的错误完全可以通过两种语言的对比来预测。由此推论,语言的差异等于学习的难点，学习的难点必然导致语言表达的错误。问题是,语言差异是语言学上的概念,学习的难点则是心理学上的概念。学习的难点无法直接从两种语言差异的程度来推测。教学实践也证明,依据对比分析确认的难点事实上并不完全导致错误的产生。对比分析的理论方法存在的致命弱点,如果归结为一句话,那就是,人们试图用简单的语言学的方法去解决复杂的心理学的问题。语言习得涉及到学习的主体和客体的方方面面,对比分析却仅仅局限于语言系统的对比,忽略了学习者这一主体以及作为学习客体的学习过程。由于对比分析在理论与实践上的危机,人们呼吁一种新的理论的诞生,并要求这种新的理论把目光投向学习的主体和客体。早期的中介语理论正是在这种历史背景下产生的。 3.2中介语的概念 于根元、鲁健骥等是在中国应用语言学领域，最早进行了介绍、评述和研究中介语的意义、特点和研究方法。我们来看他们是怎么界定中介语的。于根元认为，所谓中介语就是介于习得语和目的语之间的独立的语言系统，他是第二语言习得者创造的语言系统。鲁健骥认为，中介语指的是由于学习外语的人在学习过程中对于目的语的规律所做的不正确的归纳与推论而产生的一个语言系统,这个语言系统既不同于学习者的母语,又区别于他所学的目的语。 3.3中介语出现的根源 我们着重重复一下鲁健骥对中介语的定义：中介语指的是由于学习外语的人在学习过程中对于目的语的规律所做的不正确的归纳与推论而产生的一个语言

中介语

中介语简介中介语理论是二语习得中的一个重要理论，它产生于20世纪70年代初并于80年代初被介绍到我国，对我国的外语教学产生了巨大的推动作用，人们也逐步认识到中介语在外语教学中的积极作用。Selinker在其论文Language Transfer （1969）中首次使用了“interlanguage”一词，并于1972发表了题为Interlanguage的研究论文。Selinker认为，中介语是第二语言学习者独立的语言系统，在结构上处于母语和目的语的中间状态（1972）。 中介语在英语学习中的干扰作用 一、中介语定义及特点 中介语（Interlanguage, 简称IL）一词是英国语言学家Selinker 1969 年首次提出. 现在又被译为过渡语、中间语、中继语、语际语等。它是指学习者在某一段时间内所创建的内在语言体系或学习者在整个学习过程中所构建的相互关联的语言体系。学习者在学习和使用第二语言时，不断接受和理解新的语音、语法知识，在此基础上逐渐形成自己的语言结构。并不断对其进行系统的预测调整，通过归纳和推论产生中介语。中介语的语言系统在结构上处于母语（Native Language）和目的语（Target Language）之间，具有独立性，并兼有两者的特点。综合国内外近来的研究,中介语有如下一些特征: 1．独立性 中介语是一个独立的语言系统，它既不同于母语, 又区别于外语, 也不能单纯的把它地看作外语学习过程中由于受母语的干扰而形成的混合体。中介语有其独特的语言规则，这些规则常常被学习者用来解释外语中固有而不规则的语言现象。 2．阶段性 中介语在逐渐进化的过程中，具有一定的阶段性。它是一个开放的体系，不是固定的一成不变的。这个体系在不断被新知识渗透的同时，修正原有知识，逐渐接近目的语。 3．动态性 在外语学习过程中，学习者的中介语在不断的发展变化。虽然它充满了错误，但由于新的语言规则有及强的扩展能力，它们处于不断的组合和变化中，因此中介语随着学习者的努力和交际需要而不断变化，由简而繁，由低而高，逐渐离开母语而接近目的语。如果我们设在母语与目的语之间的中介语为一个连续体，那么，在某一特定阶段，学习者的中介语可以用连续体上的某一点。中介语越接近目的语，说明学习者的外语水平越高。 4．系统性 中介语在每个阶段都表现出较强的系统性和内部一致性。它也是一个由内部要素构成的系统，就是说它有语音的、词汇的、语法的规则系统，而且自成体系。学习者对中介语的使

中介语理论研究

中介语理论研究与第二语言教学 [摘要]中介语理论是第二语言习得研究领域中的一个认知理论。分析和研究中介语产生的根源和特点有助于了解第二语言习得机制,揭示第二语言习得的发展过程和规律。对提高教学效果有重大意义。[关键词]中介语;特点;教学 第二语言习得研究在近40年间取得了令人瞩目的成就。随着研究的不断深入和发展,人们越来越重视第二语言习得的心理过程。中介语理论把第二语言学习者的语言看作是一个内在的语言行为。因此,中介语的研究对外语教学方法论有着重要的意义。 一、中介语的概念 中介语(interlanguage)，也有人译为"过渡语"或"语际语",指的是第二语言学习者特有的一种目的语系统。是指在第二语言习得过程中,学习者通过一定的学习策略,在目的语输入的基础上所形成的一种既不同于其第一语言也不同于目的语,随着学习的进展向目的语逐渐过渡的动态的语言系统. 中介语理论认为，第二语言学习者在学习过程中所掌握和使用的目的语是一种特定的语言系统，这种语言系统在语音、词汇，语法、文化和交际等方面既不同于自己的第一语言，也不同于目的语，而是一种随着学习的进展向目的语的正确形式逐渐靠拢的动态的语言系统。由于这是一种介乎第一语言和目的语之间的语言系统，所以称之为“中介语”。 与lnterlanguage (中介语)相近的概念最早由Corder在论文《学习者错误的意义》中提出,他把学习者尚未达到的目的语语

言能力的外语能力称为过渡能力( transitional competence)。美国语言学Selinker于1969年在论文《语言迁移》中首先提出中介语假说(interlanguage)的概念。1971年,W. Nemsers在《外语学习者的相似系统》中提出了“approximative system”的概念。1972年Selinker在其著名论文《中介语》中提出的中介语假说, 对“中介语”这一概念进行较详细的阐述,是试图探索第二语言习得者在习得过程中的语言系统和习得规律的假说,在第二语言习得的研究史上有重大意义。从而确立了它在第二语言习得研究中的地位。Selinker指出:“中介语是一个独立的语言系统,它产生于学习者试图掌握第二语言所做的努力。”根据塞格林的定义,中介语既可是指第二语言学习者在学习过程中某一特定阶段中认知目标语的方式和结果的特征系统,即一种特定、具体的中介语言,也可以指反映所有学习者在第二语言习得整个过程中认知发生和发展的特征性系统,即一种普遍、抽象的中介语语言体系interlanguage continuum塞格林还指出中介语本身是一个阶段到过程的双重系统和庞大体系,即母语→中介语→目标语系统中的一个必然成分和过程。在这个系统中二语学习者从母语出发经过中介语到达目标语。并指出要到目标语必须经过中介语,中介语是第二语言认知中的必经之路。 二、中介语的产生 应用语言学领域中产生了对比分析方法(20世纪中期)。它通过对人们的母语以及所要学习的第二语言的语音、语法、词法、

英语languagepoint(完整版)

get around/round to: do (something that you have intended to do for a long time.) e.g: I was meaning to see that film but I just never got around to it. 我一直想看那部电影，但始终还是没能去看。 just as well/as well: suggesting that something will be a good thing to do/or that it was luckily that something was done or happened. 正好，幸好，不妨 e.g: “Shall I phone to remind him? ” “That would be just as well.” It was just as well you’re not here. You wouldn’t like the noise. get by (Line 3): be good enough but not very good; manage to live or do things e.g: It is a bit hard for the old couple to get by on a small amount of pension. 如果我们坚持到底，我们就能熬过难关。 We’ll get by if we hold on to the end. get across: be understood Did your speech get across to the students? get away with: run away without being punished The teller had been stealing money from the bankand got away with it. 这个出纳一直在偷银行的钱却能侥幸逃脱。 get through (Line 45): come successfully to the end e.g: We’ve stored enough food and fuel to get through the cold winter. 为了度过寒冬，我们已经储备了足够的食物和燃料。 make it (Line 9) : be successful, fulfill the purpose e.g: Having failed for thousands of times, he eventually made it. 她最后成功地成为了一家大公司的总裁。 She finally made it as a CEO of a big corporation. haul (Line 16) v. transport, as with a truck, cart, etc. e.g: These farmers haul fruits and vegetables to the market on a cart in the early morning every day. v. pull or drag sth. with effort or force e.g: A crane has to be used to haul the car out of the stream. long-overdue (Line 20) adj. Being something that should have occurred much earlier. e.g: Changes to the tax system are long overdue .She feels she’s overdue for promotion. supplement (Line 21) v. add to sth. in order to improve it (followed by with) e.g: 1) Forrest does occasional freelance to supplement his income. 2) The doctor suggested supplementing my diet with vitamins E and A. supplementary adj. additional, auxiliary spray (Line 22): v. force out liquid in small drops upon (followed by with) eg: I’ll have to spray the roses w ith insecticide to get rid of the greenfly. freelance (Line 23) adj. doing particular pieces of work for different organizations rather than working all the time for a single 自由职业者的 e.g: Most of the journalists I know are/work freelance.

中介语石化现象

中介语石化现象

————————————————————————————————作者：————————————————————————————————日期：

浅谈中介语石化现象 1．引言 外语学习中存在一个普遍现象,绝大多数学习者的外语学习达到了一定程度后,就不再像学习的最初阶段稳步提高,而是处于停滞不前的徘徊状态,很难达到目的语这个理想的终点。1972年Selinker把这个现象定义为中介语的石化 (fossilization),此后相关研究、论著相继问世,中介语石化也成为目前二语和外语教育界研究的热门课题之一。 2．中介语石化现象的定义 中介语的石化概念是Selinker(1972)首先提出的:“石化就是母语的词条、规则和词系统倾向保留在与目的语相关的中介语中,不管学习者的年龄有多大,也不管学习者接受的解释和指导有多少,这种倾向都不会改变。”在外语学习中,学习者的语言是处于一种动态的发展变化状态,中介语是一种介于学习者母语与目的语之间的一个逐渐积累和逐渐完善的过程,整个过程形成一个连续体(continuum) 。其理论假设是,中介语的始点是学习者的母语,然后随着目的语、知识的不断摄人,中介语逐渐向目的语靠拢。外语学习过程就是一种以目的语为标准的不断调整和重组的连续体,是学习者在学习新语言过程中所使用的过渡语言。中介语是第二语言认知中的必经之路。理论上,随着语言习得的逐步发展,中介语会渐渐接近直到达到目的语水平。然而大量实验表明,当学习者达到一定程度后,中介语的某些特征就会趋于停滞状态,很难甚至无法消除,从而形成语言石化。 后来,Selinker (1992) 对石化现象进一步阐释:“语言的石化现象是指外语学习者的中介语的一些语言项目,语法规则和系统性知识趋向与固定下来的状态,年龄的增长和学习量的变化对改变这种固定状态不起作用。”Selinker 认为所有外语学习

浅析中介语产生的原因

浅析中介语产生的原因 【摘要】中介语是对第二语言习得者使用目的语时所产生的不完全正确的语言系统的描述，是第二语言学习过程中学习者所使用的一种独立的语言系统。本文从母语对中介语的影响，有限的目的语知识的干扰，本族或外族文化因素的干扰，学习或交际方式、态度等的影响，教师或教材对目的语语言现象的不恰当或不充分的讲解和训练等方面分析了中介语产生的原因。 【关键词】中介语产生原因 【中图分类号】H314 【文献标识码】A 【文章编号】1674－4810（2011）13－0077－02 中介语是对第二语言习得者使用目的语时所产生的不完全正确的语言系统的描述，是第二语言学习过程中学习者所使用的一种独立的语言系统。研究者们对第二语言习得者的这一语言系统的描述曾使用过诸如：“近似语言系统”（approximative systems）、“学习者固有的内在的掌握语言的课程大纲”（learner’s built－in syllabus）、“习得者独有的语言”（idiosyncratic dialects）、“中继能力”（transitional competence）等术语。然而，广为人知，影响最大的是塞林克（Selinker）的“中介语”（interlanguage）。中介语一词最早是由塞林克首先使用，1972年他在论文“Interlanguage”中对中介语作出了全面的阐述，此后该词确立了其在第二语言习得理论中的重要地位，并为语言学界和外语教学界所接受。中介语理论于80年代初被介绍到我国。 中介语是介于母语和目的语之间的过渡性语言，以母语为出发点，不断发展并逐渐向目的语靠近。中介语作为独立的语言体系有着自身的特点。不同的学者对中介语本身的特点也有不同的概括。纵观学者们的看法，中介语具有系统性、可变性、渗透性、可创造性及石化性等特点。中介语的产生是多方心理因素影响的结果，也即产生中介语的根源。本文试对中介语的成因进行阐述。 一母语的负迁移，即干扰 在第二语言或外语学习中，学习者由于不熟悉目的语的语法规则或表达习惯，会自觉或不自觉地运用母语的规则或表达方式来处理目的语中的一些信息，会依赖其原有的母语知识辅助其意思的表达。而过多的母语干扰会产生语际错误（interlingual errors），也会出现中国式英语（Chinglish）。套用母语所出现的中介语主要反映在语音、词汇和语法等语言系统的几个层面上。例如，初学英语的中国学生把thing读成sing，因为汉语语音系统中没有齿间部位的摩擦音/θ/这一发音，中国学生习惯套用汉语的/s/来处理这一发音。又如，中国学生往往容易在读英语闭音节的同时，在结尾的辅音后面不自觉地加上一个元音，如把cook读成cooker，这是因为汉字基本上都属于开音节的缘故。在词汇方面，套用母语的例子也不少，例如，有人把汉语中的“爱人”（wife）说成“lover”（在英语中指的是情夫或情妇），把“公费医疗”说成“the public medical”（正确的说法应为the free medical care）等。在语法方面，由于受母语的影响，中国学生容易犯这样的错误：I buy it yesterday.这是因为汉语的词汇没有时态之分。又如：Though the task was difficult, but I finished it on time. 这也是受汉语习惯说法影响的结果，还有把I don’t think it is good enough. 说成I think it is not good enough. 二所学有限目的语知识的干扰 学习者因为所学目的语的知识有限，把目标语中的个别语言规则当成普遍性规则来使用，创造出不具有母语特征又不是目标语的中介语形式。学习者常将一些语言规则当成普遍性的规则滥用，将目的语的语言结构系统简单化，从而创造出既不带母语特征，目的语中又没有的结构变体。例如：What did he intended to say? 这类中介语产生的原因在于学习者把表示过去时的动词加后缀－ed的规则推而广之。又如：I don’t know when is the plane going to take off. 这是由于学习者滥用英语特殊疑问句的语序造成的。

中介语是指第二语言学习者特有的一种目的语系统

中介语是指第二语言学习者特有的一种目的语系统，这种语言系统在语音、词汇、语法、文化和交际等方面既不同于学习者自己的第一语言，也不同于目的语，而是一种随着学习的进展向目的语的正确形式逐渐靠拢的动态语言系统。（吕必松）自然界和人类社会中都存在着大量的中间状态，人类的语言也是如此。人们学习语言的过程中，以及语言接触融合的过程中，都有所谓的中间状态。现代应用语言学理论把语言中的这些中间状态称为中介现象。语言中存在着大量的“中介物”语音方面,词语方面,语法方面还有御用方面都存在着大量的中介语，在语言规范的过程中，也存在着中介状态。 中介语的特点 1.是一个独立的语言系统 中介语在其发展过程中的任何一个阶段都是学习者创造的一种介于第一语言和目的语之间的独特的语言系统。它有一套自身的规律，在语音、词汇、语法等系统方面都有表现。学习者有意识地使用这套规则去生成或理解他们从未接触过的话语。中介语具有人类其他语言所具有的特点和功能，可以用作交际的工具。 2，,是一个动态的语言系统，新知识和新规则不断注入；原有的尚未学好的规则和结构也在不断修正调整。随着学习者语言水平的提高和交际需要的增长，中介语不断发展，并呈一定的阶段性，由简单到复杂、由低级到高级、逐渐离开第一语言向目的语靠拢。 3.反复性。 在对目的语的学习过程中，随着水平的提高，中介语是在逐步地向目的语的规范运动的，但这并不是说，这种接近是直线前进的，而是有反复、有曲折的，这就是中介语的反复性。已经纠正了的偏误还可能有规律地重现。 .具有顽固性（“化石化”） 语言的某些具体形式上学到了一定程度就停滞不前了。比如在语音方面，有的学生学了很长时间，到了高年级，还是掌握不了某几个音。我们把这种现象也称作“化石化”。 中介语理论在对外汉语教学中的运用主要体现在以下方面: (一)研究不同母语的留学生的中介语情况及其特点 (二)对外汉语教师要善于发现留学生母语和汉语的相同和相异之处,运用迁移理论恰当引导 (三) 采用多种教学方法,运用适当的教学策略,使留学生的中介语不断接近目的语

中介语产生的语言心理原因_刘利民

中介语产生的语言心理原因 刘利民,刘　爽 (四川大学外语学院四川成都610064) 摘　要:本文从描述第二语言习得过程的中介语现象及其特征入手,通过解释人类语言的普适性心理机制,探讨了中介语现象的产生原因,得出了中介语现象产生于学习者构建目的语的心理句法系统时其语言习得机制的自主创造性。关键词:第二语言习得;中介语;语言心理 中图分类号:H0 文献标识码:A 文章编号:1000-5544(2003)01-0006-05 Abstract:T his paper descr ibed the pro per ties of int er language,a phenomeno n in second language acquisitio n,ex-plor ed the univ ersal mechanism o f hum an languag e behav io r and discussed the r easo ns of the occurr ence o f the inter-languag e pheno menon.T he paper concluded that inter lang uag e resulted fro m t he autono mous cr eativ ity o f t he lan-g uage acquisitio n mechanism o f the seco nd languag e lea rners in the co nst ructio n of a new mental gr ammar system o f the targ et languag e. Key words:second lang uage acquisitio n;inter lang ua ge;psycho ling uistic 1.中介语的特性 中介语(interlanguag e)这一概念是Selinker(1972)于20世纪70年代初正式提出的,指的是第二语言学习者自己创造的一种介于母语和目的语之间的过渡性语言系统,这种语言系统是动态的,并且随着学习的进展逐渐接近目的语。80年代初,我国学术界引进了中介语的概念,其中比较完整和详细的表述为(鲁健骥,1984):“中介语指的是由于学习外语的人在学习过程中对于目的语的规律所做的不正确的归纳与推论而产生的一种语言系统。这个语言系统既不同于学习者的母语,又区别于他所学的目的语。中介语系统在语音、词汇、语法、文化等方面都有表现。但它又不是固定不变的,而是随着学习的发展,逐渐向目的语的正确形式靠拢。” 随着相关研究的进展,学术界对于中介语的特性有了比较系统的认识,L arsen-F reem an等人(1994)在其专著中较详细地讲述了三点。首先,中介语具有变异性,包括随意变体(free var iation)和系统性变异(systemat ic v ariability)两种现象。随意变体指的是中介语所呈现的相当大的共时变异性;即学习者在相同的时间、等值的语境,为达到同样的交际目的而使用所学的目的语的时候出现的交替使用标准和非标准句法 参考文献 [1]Brow n,G.&Yu le,G.Discourse A nalysis[M].Cambridge: C UP,1983. [2]Coulthar d,M.A n I ntroduction to Discourse A naly sis[M].Lon- don:Longman,1977. [3]Fries,P.On the Status of T heme in En glish[A].In J an os,S. Petodi an d Ermel S ozer(ed.)M acr o-and M icro-Connex ity of Dis-course[C].Hamburg:Dusde,1983. [4]Halliday,M. A.K.Exp lorations in the F unctions of L angu ag e [M].London:Edw ard Arnold,1973. [5]Halliday,M.A.K.&Has an,R.Cohesion in Eng lish[M].Lon- don:Longman,1976. [6]Halliday,M.A.K.&Hasan,R.L ang uage,Context and T ex t [M].Victoria:Deak in U nivers ity Press,1985a. [7]Halliday,M.A.K.Introduction to F unctional G rammar[M]. L on don:Ed ward Arnold,1985c/1994. [8]Halliday,M. A.K.L ang uag e as S ocial S emiotic:A n Social In- terpr etation of M eaning[M].London:Edw ard Arn old,1978. [9]M artin,J.Eng lish T ex t:System and S tructure[M].Ams terdam and Philadelphia:Benjamins,1992. [10]S inclair,J.M cH.&M.Coulth ard.T ow ard s an A nalysis o f Discour se[M].London:Oxford U nivers ity Press,1975. [11]Ventola, E.Discour se in S ociety:Sy stemic Functional P ersp ec- tiv es[M].Ablex,1995. [12]Widdow s on,H.G.T eaching L anguag e as Communication[M]. Ox ford:OUP,1978. [13]胡壮麟.语篇的衔接与连贯[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 1994. [14]苗兴伟.论衔接与连贯的关系[J].外国语,1998(4). [15]张德禄.功能文体学[M].济南:山东教育出版社,1998. [16]张德禄.话语基调的范围及其体现[J].外语教学与研究,1998 (1). [17]张德禄.语篇连贯研究纵横谈[J].外国语,1999(6). [18]张德禄.论衔接[J].外国语,2001(2). 作者简介:张德禄,教授,博士生导师,曾于80年代赴澳大利亚悉尼大学留学,师从韩礼德教授,主要研究系统功能语言学、文体学、符号学、外语教学等。 收稿日期　2002-02-18 责任编校　薛旭辉

中介语特点及其在语言学习中的应用

中介语特点及其在语言学习中的应用 摘要：中介语是二语习得中一个非常重要的学术概念和研究课题，具有系统性、可变性、可渗透性等特点。石化是中介语发展过程中一个不可避免的现象。了解中介语的基本特征，有助于我们把握语言习得的自然规律和过程，为外语教学方法、教学策略的确定提供理论依据。 关键词：中介语；石化；外语教学 一、中介语具备的特点 （一）系统性 系统性指中介语的规则是系统变化的。在语言学习者的动态学习过程中，其语言能力始终处在不断重组、矫正和不断向目的语规则接近的过程中。学习者利用已知的目的语规则，采用不同的语言策略对语言材料进行加工处理，从而重建其规则系统。这种变化并非毫无规律可循，而是呈现一定的系统变化性。这从语言习得顺序研究和错误分析研究结果可见一斑。如果学习者用自己在某一特定学习阶段的中介语系统来衡量自己的学习能力，其中介语就无所谓对错。 （二）可变性 中介语是一个动态的语言系统，随着语言学习者语言水平的提高和交际的需要，新的语言规则进入中介语系统后具有扩散能力，使得中介语系统处于不断的重组之中，并由简单到复杂，逐渐向目的语靠拢，即具有逐渐进化的特征，其发展具有一定的阶段性，是一个灵活的、不断变化的体系。可变性是中介语中复杂而又富有相当研究意义的概

念，主要包括系统可变性和非系统可变性。 （三）石化 对于存在于中介语中的石化现象，Selinker给出的定义是：它是存在于外语学习者的中介语中的一些语言项目、语法规则和系统性知识趋于固定下来的状态。年龄的增长和目的语知识的多少也无法改变这种固定状态。关于中介语石化现象的起因有许多观点，我们这里只涉及“外因说”。它的代表理论是Schumann提出的文化迁移模式。它是指由于学习者在社会和心理方面与目的语保持一定距离，于是在语言处理过程中记忆和输入的操作过程就受到了限制。在这种情形下，学习者往往只能依赖与其自身的母语和中介语进行语言处理。如果长期以不完善的中介语来处理语言，就会导致中介语的石化。 Ellis所提出的“相互作用论”更能解释石化现象产生的外在原因。它是指学习者在现象和交流过程中所得到的反馈怎样影响或作用于学习者。它包括两个观点：1. 学习者在第二语言学习的课堂内所获得的不正确的语言输入有时被当作或起到语言输入的作用，从而导致了学习者的语言错误的沉淀，即石化。2. 第二语言学习的课堂活动中的反馈对学习者可产生肯定的、中立的或负面的影响，而学习者对肯定的反馈特别容易引起石化。 （四）可渗透性 语言学习者的中介语系统是开放的，即每一个阶段学到的知识不是固定不变的，而是可以修正和增加，这可以通过语言学习者在学习过程中对语言知识的再加工和重组而实现。这种开放性决定了它的可渗透

浅析汉英中介语话题突出结构产生的根源

龙源期刊网 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2512103617.html, 浅析汉英中介语话题突出结构产生的根源 作者：李铖超 来源：《青年文学家》2017年第27期 摘要：语言学家Li&Thompson提出的语言类型学认为英语和汉语属于不同的语言类型。英语属于主语突出的语言，而汉语属于话题突出的语言，这两种不同类型的语言特征会不可避免地影响中介语的形成和发展。本文列举常见的八类中介语话题突出结构，并试图阐释中介语话题突出结构频繁出现的根源。 关键词：语言类型学；中介语话题突出结构；根源 作者简介：李铖超（1991.11-），男，汉，河北省保定市蠡县人，中国海洋大学外国语学院硕士，研究方向：二语习得与外语教学。 [中图分类号]：H314 [文献标识码]：A [文章编号]：1002-2139（2017）-27--03 1.引言 在二语习得领域，中介语发展和母语迁移逐渐受到更广泛的思考和关注。当前，对中介语研究存在两种不同的倾向，即中介语的发展过程是否受到本族语者的影响。尽管近些年，普遍语法的发展不再过多强调母语在第二语言学习中的作用，但更多深入的研究证实母语确实在二语习得发展过程中发挥重要功能。中介语作为介于学习者母语和目的语中间的独立的语言系统，充分反映了汉语话题突出和英语主题突出之间的类型学区别。 现代语言类型学起源于美国语言类型学家Comrie（1989）， Greenberg（1966）， Croft （1990/2003）及其他们的研究和理论。这门学科的研究任务就是基于语序对语言进行分类。一种语言的语序就取决于三种核心参项组成的 功能构式，即主语，谓语和宾语。一门语言基本语序反映并限制了它本身的语法系统和概念体系。语言类型学在分类，归纳和解释的基础之上高度融合了相关参项之间的语序隐性蕴涵关系，语序概括规则和理论依据。 关于话题突出和主语突出的语言类型学研究起源于美国语言学家Li&Thompson。漢语和 英语分别属于不同的语言类型体系。话题突出和主语突出本质的区别就在于在句法层次上语法程度的不同。语法化（grammatication）指的是一些固定形式所表征的语义或语用内容体现着 显著的语法功能和范畴，比如英语名词短语的格标记词，动词短语的时态标记词，汉语的功能词，零成分的分布和冠词的用法。

中介语的特点

中介语的特点 Interlanguage refers to the phenomenon that a learner at a particular point in time is in fact using a language system which is neither the L1 nor the L2, an independent system, a third language, an approximate system or an idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence 中介语是第二语言学习者在第二语言学习中形成的一种特定语言系统，这种语言系统在语音、词汇、语法、语用等方面，既不同于学生的第一语言，也不同于所学习的目的语，而是一种随着学习的发展向目的语的正确形式逐渐靠拢的一种动态的语言系统。它是一种介于第一语言和目的语之间的一种过渡的语言系统。 中介语有三大特点：可渗透性、动态性、系统性。 1.可渗透性（Permeable）：The L2 learner’s interlanguage system is permea ble, in the sense that rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but are open to amendment. 2.动态性（Dynamic）：This takes place by the introduction of a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. A new rule spreads in the sense that its coverage gradually extends over a range of linguistic contexts. 3.系统性（Systematic）：It is possible to detect the rule-based nature of the learner’s use of L2. He does not select haphazardly from his store of interlanguage rules, but in predictable ways.

中介语理论

中介语理论文献综述 一、中介语理论的产生 二十世纪50年代，对比分析在语言教学和研究领域一统天下。但对比分析试图用简单 的语言学方法来解决复杂的心理学问题，它站在“教学中心”而非“学习中心”的立场上，忽略了学习者作为语言学习的主体这一基本事实，同时也忽略了学习者的学习过程。由于此种原因，对比分析在60年代不可避免地走向了困境。 1967年，Corder发表了一篇题为《学习者偏误的意义》的文章，将人们的注意力引到了学习者身上。Corder主张从学习者的偏误入手观察学习者的语言系统，将学习者的语言系统和目的语语言系统进行对比，从心理语言学、社会语言学、篇章分析等角度出发在更广阔的范围内解释学习者产生偏误的原因，而不仅仅局限于从母语和母的语两种语言系统的差异中寻找解释。自此，偏误分析理论正式诞生并有力推动了第二语言习得的研究，但它仍然存在着自身难以回避的缺陷：偏误分析将注意力集中在学习者的偏误上，而不顾及学习者正确的方面，仅通过观察到的偏误来分析学习者的语言系统往往以偏概全。 在这样的情况下，Selinker（1972）、Corder（1967、1971）、Nemser(1967、1971)三位学者先后提出了大致相似的理论，他们的观点共同构成了早期中介语理论。 二、中介语理论的概念 “中介语”这一概念最早由Selinker提出，其中最重要的两个方面是：第一，“学习者可以观察到的语言输出是高度结构化的”；第二，“中介语必须作为一个系统而不是一个孤立的错误的集合来看待”。由此，中介语的定义可概括为以下三点; 首先，中介语是可以观察到的语言输出。Selinker倾向于把中介语看作一种语言的产出而非过程，也就说他所指的“中介语”是人们可以实际观察到的学习者的言语行为和表达。 其次，中介语是高度结构化的，也就是说中介语内在结构具有高度系统性，这种结构的系统性表现为学习者的言语行为是建立在其已有的规则基础上的，因

写出中介语的几个特点

写出中介语的几个特点： Inter-language refers to the phenomenon that a learner at a particular point in time is in fact using a language system which is neither the L1 nor the L2, an independent system, a third language, an approximate system or an idiosyncratic dialects and transitional competence . 中介语是第二语言学习者在第二语言学习中形成的一种特定语言系统，这种语言系统在语音、词汇、语法、语用等方面，既不同于学生的第一语言，也不同于所学习的目的语，而是一种随着学习的发展向目的语的正确形式逐渐靠拢的一种动态的语言系统。它是一种介于第一语言和目的语之间的一种过渡的语言系统。中介语有三大特点：可渗透性、动态性、系统性。 1. 可渗透性（Permeable）：The L2 learner’s inter-language system is permeable, in the sense that rules that constitute the learner’s knowledge at any one stage are not fixed, but are open to amendment. 2. 动态性（Dynamic）：This takes place by the introduction of a new rule, first in one context and then in another, and so on. A new rule spreads in the sense that its coverage gradually extends over a range of linguistic contexts. 3. 系统性（Systematic）：It is possible to detect the rule-based nature of the learner’s use of L2. He does not select haphazardly from his store of inter-language rules, but in predictable ways.

关于中介语的认识总结

关于中介语的认识总结09021053 邓桢09对外一中介语的产生是20世纪70年代,它是人们试图通过对学习者的语言系统的分析和解释来寻找外语自然习得过程的规律，从而为外语课堂教学的各个环节提供理论方面的依据的产物。由于受到“刺激-反应论”行为主义心理学和结构主义心理学等的影响，人们一度只重视语言学习的外部环境，忽略了语言学习的主体。而中介语的研究把重点移到语言学习者及其在第二语言习得或者外语学习中所采取的种种手段，如对第二语言的过度概括，以及有意回避学习者母语中所没有的结构。他不但把第二语言的获得看成是一个逐渐积累、逐步完善的连续的过程，而且看成是学习者不断通过假设——验证，主动发现规律，调整修订所获得的规律，对原有的知识结构进行重组并且逐步创立目的语系统的过程。 中介语的诞生 “中介语”一词是由Selinker于1969年在其论文“语言迁移”（Language Transfer）中首先使用。1972年他又发表了题为“中介语”（Interlanguage）的论文，对“中介语”这一概念进行了阐述，确立了它在第二语言习得研究中的地位。 中介语的涵义及其特点 根据Selinker的定义：Interlanguage refers to the separateness of a second language learner system ,a system, that has a structurally intermediate status between the native and target languages.中介语的定义包括三个方面：首先中介语是可观察到的言语输出。其次，它是高度结构化的。最后，中介语是独立的语言体系。是外语学习者的介于母语及目的语之间的语言体系。 关于中介语的特点，不同的学者也有不同的看法。其中美国学者C.Adjemian（1976）最具代表性： 1.可渗透性。指中介语可以受到来自母语和目的语规则及形式的渗透。母语的渗透也就是正负迁移和干扰的结果；目的语的渗透则是对已学过的目的语规则或形式“过渡泛化”的结果。可渗透性有积极作用，也有消极作用。 2.“化石化”现象。它是指中介语稳定性的一个表现。这一方面指的是中介语在总体上总也达不到与目的语完全一样的水平，另一方面是指某些学习者在语言的某些具体形式上到了一定程度就停滞不前了。 3.反复性。中介语在向目的语规范的运动过程中，并非是直线前进的，它有反复，有曲折。其表现为已经得到纠正的偏误重又有规律地反复出现。另外，系统性和不完整性也为广大学者所接受。系统性是指中介语是一个相对独立的语言系统。尽管中介语的表现形式千差万别，但在中介语发展的各个阶段都表现出内部的一致性和系统性。不完整性是指中介语和目的语之间，与自然语言相比显得不够完整。 中介语理论研究存在的问题 中介语理论还只是一种假设，它涉及到很多较难控制的变因，研究方法的科学性也有待于进一步完善。中介语的重要特点“化石化”现象，目前的原因还只是从心理上探讨，已经达成的共识还需要实验的证实。中介语研究方法涉及到观察、实验，并对观察和试验的结果进行比较、分析和描写。但因为中介语的实验常常使用社会语言学的统计方法。随机取样的可信度不高。目前的描写还很不完善，不能反映学习者学习语言过程的全貌。 小结 中介语是外语学习者建立的一种介于母语和目的语之间的过渡性语言，是一个不断向目的语接近的语言系统。学生在中介语知识的基础上，综合运用各方面的知识和能力，不断地完善自己的语言行为。“中介语言就可以作为语言学习理论研究的突破口。”（吕必松）中介语的研究对于促进第二语言的习得起到不可忽视的作用。我们应该进一步加强对于中介语理论的研究，并思考其对于对外汉语教学的启示。（参考资料教材及《论汉语中介语的研究》吕必松《中介语与对外汉语教学》姚晓波）