学年论文.docx

学年论文.docx

《学年论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《学年论文.docx（13页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

学年论文

学号

2011216231

分类号

G622.4

本科生学年论文

题目：

《让泪化作相思雨》中的爱情隐喻

院（系）外语系

专业班级英语2011级2班

学生姓名周婷

指导教师（职称）鲁克伟（助教）

提交时间二〇一四年六月

LoveMetaphorsofLettingTearsTurnIntoLovesickRain

ZhouTing

Abstract:

Key:

“InputHypothesis”,“AffectiveFilterHypothesis”,listeningandreading,primaryschool.

语言输入学习理论对小学英语听力与阅读教学的启示

周婷

（安康学院外语系，陕西安康725000）

摘要：

本论文主要研究语言输入学习理论对小学英语听力与阅读教学的启示。

本论文的主要目的是根据克拉申的“输入假说”与“情感过滤假说”来解决小学英语听力与阅读教学的主问题，从而得出结论：

小学英语听力与阅读教学不仅要培养学生英语学习兴趣，而且要有足够的语言输入和考虑学生的情感因素。

关键词：

“输入假说”；“情感过滤假说”；听力与阅读；小学

Contents

AbstractinEnglishi

AbstractinChineseii

Contentsiii

1Introduction1

2LiteratureReview2

3Theoreticalbasis3

3.1InputHypothesis3

3.2AffectiveFilterHypothesis4

4ProblemsofPrimaryEnglishListeningandReading4

4.1problemsofEnglishlisteningteachingatprimaryschool4

4.1.1Excessivegamesinsteadofknowledgelearning,performancesinsteadofdrills5

4.1.2Theseverephenomenaofmothertongueteaching5

4.1.3Ignoringstudents’affectiveelementsandpsychologicalfeaturesofEnglishlearning6

4.2ProblemsofEnglishreadingteachingatprimaryschool6

5InputLearningTheoryandItsInspirationforEnglishListeningandReadingTeachingatPrimarySchool6

5.1InputHypothesisanditsinspirationforEnglishlisteningteachingatprimaryschool6

5.2AffectiveFilterHypothesisanditsinspirationforEnglishlisteningteachingatprimaryschool7

5.3InputHypothesisanditsinspirationforEnglishreadingteachingatprimaryschool7

5.4AffectiveFilterHypothesisanditsinspirationforEnglishreadingteachingatprimaryschool8

6Conclusion9

Acknowledgments10

References11

1Introduction

ItiscommonlyacknowledgedthatEnglishisasignificantmeansofinternationalcommunication.Therefore,itisnecessarytolearnEnglishwellsoastoboosteconomicdevelopmentandcooperationandpoliticalcommunications.Nowadays,Englishteachingprevailsatprimaryschoolsinchina,andChinesepeopletakeitseriously.ButtherearemanyproblemsaboutEnglishteachingatprimaryschools,especiallyinEnglishlisteningandreadingteaching;emphasizingoncultivatingchildren’sinterestofEnglishinsteadoftheimportanceoftwomainsourcesoflanguageinputforprimarystudents;ignoringlanguageinput:

listeningandreadingandlanguageinputisthefirstthing.Alsoteacherslackofexactanalysisonpupils’psychologicalfeatureswhichthengiverisetopessimisticemotionsandheavilymentalburden.Intermsoftheseproblems,itisintegralforteacherstostudythesecondlanguageacquisition（SLA）.AmericanlinguistKrashen（1980,1981,1982andelsewhere）putforwardwhathecallsthe“InputHypothesis”.InputshowsdifferentcharacteristicsdependingondifferenttheoriesofSLAfromS.D.Krashen’smodel（1985）.InputisperhapsthemostimportantconceptinSLA.The“AffectiveFilterHypothesis”embodiesKrashen’sviewthatvariousaffectivefactors,playingafacilitative,butnon-causal,roleinSLA（1981）.HeisoneofthebestknownandmostinfluentiallinguistsofSLAinthe1970sandearly1980s.inputlearningtheory,includinginputhypothesisandaffectivefilter,wasputforwardinordertomakeEnglishlisteningandreadingteachingefficientandeffectiveatprimaryschool.

Thepaperincludesfivepartsareasfollows：

Firstly,introducing“InputHypothesis”;secondly,introducing“AffectiveFilterHypothesis”;thirdly,introducingproblemsofEnglishlisteningteachingatprimaryschool;fourthly,introducingproblemsofEnglishreadingteachingatprimaryschool;finally,introducinginputlearningtheoryanditsinspirationforEnglishlisteningandreadingteachingatprimaryschool.

2LiteratureReview

Englishlisteningandreadingarethemainsourceoflanguageinputwhichisthefirstthing,butinrecentyears,therearemanyproblemsoccurringinEnglishlisteningandreadingteachingatprimaryschool.Inputlearningtheoryincluding“InputHypothesis”and“AffectiveFilterHypothesis”canhaveasignificantinfluenceonEnglishlisteningandreadingteachingatprimaryschool.

Krashen’sInputHypothesis（1984:

21）isanimportantpartofinputlearningtheory.inputisperhapsthemostimportantconceptinSLA.Hepointsoutthat“theinputhypothesisclaimsthathumanacquirelanguageinonlyoneway-byunderstandingmessagesorbyreceiving‘comprehensibleinput’”whichisfocusedonthemeaningandnottheformoflanguage（Krashen,1985:

2）;itattemptstoexplainhowwedoacquirelanguage;italsoattemptstoexplainhowalearnerprogressesinacquisition,Krashenprovidesuswithamodellikethis:

”i+1”.Learnerscanunderstandlanguagecontainingunequaledgrammarwiththehelpofcontext.MeanwhileKrashen’saffectivefilterhypothesis,hethinksthataffectivefilterisakindofpsychologicalobstaclewhichpreventsalearnerfromtakinginthecomprehensiveinput.Andthevariablesinclude:

anxiety,self-confidentandmotivation.

Ellis（1994:

118）dividesthesourceofinputintointeractiveinputwhichincludesinterlanguagetalk,teachertalk,foreignertalk,andnon-interactiveinputwhichincludeslisteningandreading.

Hereiswhatonescholarhastosay:

“theconceptofinputisperhapsthesinglemostimportantconceptofsecondlanguageacquisition.Itistrivialtopointoutthatnoindividualcanlearnasecondlanguagewithoutinputofsomesort”（Gass,1997:

1）

Inputorprimarylinguisticdataislanguagethatcontainsinstancesorexemplarsofvariousgrammaticalformsandotherlinguisticinformationinthelanguageenvironmentofthelanguageacquirer（Schwartz,1993）.

Long（1983）makesconsiderationsofhowinputisrenderedcomprehensibleandpointsouttheinteractioninputhypothesis,whichmakesteachersinteractwithstudents.

Behaviorismputstressonexternalfactorsofthelearner’slearning.Thelinguisticenvironment,e.g.theexposuretosuitablestimuli,isrecognizedasanimportantdeterminingfactorinSLA.Inputhereincludesstimuliandfeedbackfromthenativespeakers（LinLi,2007:

171-172）itfocusesonenhancement.

Nativismemphasizestheinternalmechanismoflanguagelearners,that’stheinternalprocessingmechanism.itcontendsthatexposuretolanguagecannotnaturallyamounttoacquisitionandinputisonlyregardedasa“trigger”thatsparksinternallanguageprocessing.

PenfieldandRoberts（1959）pointsoutcriticalperiodhypothesisofSLA.

ThedistinctionbetweeninputandintakewasfirstmadebyCorder（1967:

165）whenhenotedthatsimplypresentingalinguisticformtoalearnerdoesnotqualifyitforthestatusofinputbecause“whatgoesinisnotwhatisavailableforgoingin”.Muchoftheinputcontains“noise”.

AlpertandHaber’s（1960）distinctionbetweenfacilitatinganxietyanddebilitatinganxiety

3Theoreticalbasis

ThischapterreferstoKrashen’stwomainHypotheses---InputHypothesisandAffectiveFilterHypothesis.

3.1InputHypothesis

Krashen’sInputHypothesisreferstoalotofcomprehensibleinputandcallsitthecentralclaimofmonitortheory.Itanswersacriticalquestionoflearninglanguagesabouthowtoacquirelanguages,especiallyforeignlanguages.Previousconstructionallinguistsadvocatestudyingsentencestructuresthencommunicatewithothersusingthesestructures.Onthecontrary,Krashenemphasizesonacquiringmeanings,thenacquiringlanguagestructures.Accordingtothishypothesis,languageinputisneithertoodifficultnortoosimple.Itmaintainsthatasecondlanguageisacquiredthroughprocessingcomprehensibleinput.Krashen’sInputHypothesis（1981,1985,1989）makesthefollowingclaims:

a.Learners’progressalongthenaturalorderbyunderstandinginputthatcontainsstructuresalittlebitbeyondtheircurrentlevelofcompetence.Whenalearneratsomestage,i,ofinputtinglanguagedevelopmentreceivescomprehensibleinputthatcontainsstructures,onestepbeyondthecurrentstage,orstructuresat“i+1”ori+1inputprinciple.

b.Althoughcomprehensibleinputisnecessaryforacquisitiontotakeplace,itisnotsufficient,aslearnersalsoneedtobeaffectivelydisposedto“letin”theinputtheycomprehend.

c.Inputbecomescomprehensibleasaresultofsimplificationandwiththehelpofcontextualandextralinguisticclues;“fine-tuning”（i.e.ensuringthatlearnersreceiveinputrichinthespecificlinguisticpropertytheyareduetoacquirenext）isnotnecessary.

d.Speakingistheresultofacquisition,notitscause;learnerproductiondoesnotcontributedirectlytoacquisition.

Fourcriteriaofeffectiveinputareasfollows:

a.inputmustbecomprehensible,b.inputisinterestingandrelevant,andc.inputdoesn’tobeygrammaticalsequence;d.inputmustbeadequate.

3.2AffectiveFilterHypothesis

Krashen’saffectivefilterhypothesisdenotestherelationshipbetweenaffectiveelementsandsecondlanguageacquisition.AffectivefilterwasadvancedbyDulayandBurtin1977.Krashen’sviewthatvariousaffectivefactors,playingafacilitative,butnon-causal,roleinSLA（1981）.Lackofmotivation,lowself-esteem,debilitatinganxiety,Krashenclaims,cancombineto“raisethefilter”,toforma“mentalblock”,whichpreventscomprehensibleinputfromreachingthelanguageacquisitiondevice（Krashen1982:

31）,andtherebyfrombeingusedforacquisition.Anegativeaffectivedisposition（afilterthatis“up”）,thatis,constitutesaconstraintsonthesuccessfulworkingsofcomprehensibleinput,putanotherway,positiveeffectisnecessary,butnotsufficient,forSLA.

4ProblemsofPrimaryEnglishListeningandReading

4.1problemsofEnglishlisteningteachingatprimaryschool

AttheadventofnewlyEnglishcurriculumstandard,teacherschangetheirtraditionalteachingconceptsand