社会文化视角下文化语境在二语习得中的作用
- 格式:doc
- 大小:136.50 KB
- 文档页数:16
文化对第二语言习得的影响研究作者:田琳来源:《科教导刊》2015年第08期摘要语言是人与人之间交流沟通的重要媒介和手段,如果语言习得者希望自己的第二语言既流畅又准确,单靠言语输入是不充分的,还需要文化输入来帮助学习者消除语言的障碍。
本课题拟通过对文化主要因素与第二语言习得关联性的分析,探求文化对第二语言习得的重要性和影响,以期使第二语言的习得达到最优效果,使学习目的和成效更为明显。
关键词文化第二语言习得影响中图分类号:H313 ;文献标识码:A ; DOI:10.16400/ki.kjdkz.2015.03.074Impact of Culture on Second Language AcquisitionTIAN Lin(He'nan Polytechnic University, Jiaozuo, He'nan 454000)Abstract Language is an important means of media and communication between people, and if those who want their language acquisition second language both smooth and accurate speech input alone is not sufficient, but also cultural input to help eliminate language learners obstacles. This paper intends to pass on cultural factors and second language acquisition correlation analysis, to explore the cultural importance and impact on second language acquisition, in order to make the acquisition of a second language to achieve optimal results, so that the learning objectives and effect is more obvious.Key words culture; second language acquisition; impact“第二语言习得指的是人们逐步提高其第二语言或外语水平的过程”。
社会文化理论在二语习得中的应用研究作者:杨帆来源:《文教资料》2013年第13期摘要:在现代的二语习得中,Vygotsky的社会文化理论越来越引起大家的广泛关注。
社会文化理论强调二语习得者在习得语言的过程中不仅要重视自己的内在化消化吸收知识的过程,更要注重外界的社会文化因素对二语习得的影响。
此项研究从Vygotsky的社会文化理论出发,探讨交际教学法是怎样成功应用于二语习得课程的。
关键词:社会文化理论交际教学法二语习得行为主义1.引言语言的作用是什么?语言是为交际而存在的,这一点也是由社会环境和学生个人共同决定的。
Vivian Cook曾经在书中写道:“learning how to mean-discovering that language is used for relating to other people and for communicating ideas.”[1]尤其是二语习得者,他们总是尽力用非母语进行交流。
事实上,二语习得者在学习的过程中,学习者的社会和心理环境并没有伴随着语言的发展而稳步发展。
所以,选择合适的语言和教学方法非常重要。
在所有的二语习得理论中,Vygotsky的社会文化理论是受到大众广泛认可的。
2.行为主义根据二语习得理论,行为主义被认为是习惯的形成,而认知学也认为语言的习得就是学习者简单的知识内化过程,也就是说,学习者仅仅通过自己的内化而把输入变成了输出,所以,从这一点来说,行为主义和认知主义都忽视了对语言学习影响深远的社会和文化因素。
3.社会文化理论Lightbown和Spada在二语习得中这样阐释过社会文化理论:“Vygotsky‟s theory assumes that all cognitive development,including language development,arises as a result of social interactions between individual.”[2]不仅仅是二语习得,包括母语习得、语言能力的发展也都是在不断地互动中发展起来的,这其中有学习者之间的互动,更有学习者与社会文化之间的互动。
语境对二语习得的影响_语音论文关键词:二语习得,国内语境,沉浸语境,国外语境,流畅,交际策略,语音,辞汇句法1.引言40连年前,戴尔海姆斯指出要理解内部机制就要研究校外环境。
并以为理解上下文的关键不在语言本身而是在语境。
一些学者如朗以为从相对独立于外部因素的心理语言学的角度研究认知进程是重要的。
另一些学者如福斯和瓦格那以为最好的二语习得预测模式应考虑社会活动与心理语言因素的互动。
2.学习语境二语习得的认知模式要能很好地解释输入、输出,以互动、任务为特点的教学技能与习得的关系。
研究重点包括研究隐含式和外在式教学策略的功效,培育意识技能的效果,教授以意义为重点的课文时是不是应该引导学生关注形式,负反馈的作用,输入加工的心理语言学原则,和输出的作用。
这些研究强调成心义的语言利用符合心理学家讲的大脑如何内化新知识理论。
(Freed)但二语习得若是轻忽认知的作用和概念学习语境的变量是不完备的(Norris)。
朗承认“一种较为普遍的,对语境敏感的,参与者敏感的社会语言学可能有助于二语习得的研究。
”研究者把注意力转向语境研究。
语境敏感理论尚有争议,因为相关的理论可能使研究者把语言知识视为文化和经验的延伸(Atkinson)。
海姆斯最先描述了语境和语言关系,他列出的语境八要素是:背景,参与者,目的,行为,关键,手腕,互动和解释的标准,和文体。
巴特斯通把语境归为两类:交际的和学习的。
弗里德语境归为三类。
一是国内正式的语言教室语境,主如果学习语境。
教师可能设置任务学生利用第二语言在课堂交际,但他们很难碰到真正社会交往所有的变量。
二是强化国内沉浸语境,如暑期项目。
学生在母语背景下用所有的时间来学习第二语言。
虽然周边文化是母语,参与者原则上同意用第二语言实现社会和人际交往,交际语境和学习语境相对平衡。
固然此语境下的互动不尽是自然的,他们接触的人不都是本族语者,互动也不是出此刻真实的目的语文化场景里。
三是国外学习语境。
学生在目的语文化中学习第二语言,一般住在房主家里。
语境对二语习得的影响语境对二语习得的影响语境(context)是指语言所处的环境,包括语言使用的情景、社会文化背景、语言交际的对象、语言风格等方面。
在二语习得过程中,语境是一个重要的因素,它可以影响学习者对语言的理解和掌握程度,同时也会对他们的语言使用产生影响。
本文将探讨语境对二语习得的影响。
一、语境对语言理解的影响语言是社会文化的产物,每一种语言都蕴含着其所处的社会文化背景和语言使用习惯。
因此,在学习二语时,理解语言的语境对掌握语言的正确用法和意义至关重要。
首先,语境对词汇理解的影响尤为显著。
同一单词在不同语境下的意义可能会有所不同,如“book”一词可以指书籍,也可以指机票预订,取决于它所处的语境。
因此,在学习词汇时,需要注意它的上下文语境,通过上下文的提示,进一步理解和掌握词汇的实际用法。
除了词汇,语境也对语法理解和掌握产生影响。
语法规则是语言的重要组成部分,而它往往需要考虑到语境因素。
例如,正确使用冠词是英语学习者常常遇到的难题,在不同语境下,冠词的用法也是不同的。
比如,“The”可以指特定的人、事、物,也可以指整个类别中符合条件的某个人、事、物。
因此,学习者需要通过不同语境下的例句和语言情景理解冠词的用法及其变化,从而更好地使用冠词。
二、语境对语言使用的影响语言的使用渠道多种多样,使用习惯也各有不同,因此,在不同语境下的语言使用也会有所不同。
首先,语境对口语交际的影响尤为显著。
口语交际往往需要考虑到所处的交际场景和语言风格,以适应交往对象和社会文化背景的需求。
例如,在职场中使用的语言风格通常是正式、礼貌并且较为严谨,而在朋友间的对话中则更为随意、轻松和不拘小节。
因此,学习者需要通过接触不同的语言环境和语言样式进行练习,从而更好地掌握口语交际的技巧。
其次,语境对书面交际的影响也不容忽视。
在不同的书面交际场景中,语境影响着语言的表达方式、用词和语法的运用。
例如,在商务邮件中,学习者需要使用更为正式和礼貌的语言风格,注重语法和用词的准确性,以传达专业的形象和信用;在论文或学术文献中,学习者需要使用更为严谨的语言风格,遵循规范的写作结构和语法要求,以确保文章的逻辑性和可读性。
论文化学习在二语习得中的作用二语习得研究始于20世纪后半期,它在学习者个体差异、学习者策略、中介语等许多方面取得了丰硕的成果,客观上促使了外语教学研究重点由研究如何教到研究如何学这一根本转向,对于真正科学、有效、合理地组织外语教学无疑有着不可估量的意义。
然而,传统的二语习得研究忽略了一个问题,没有顾及文化与语言的密切关系,对文化习得在二语习得中的作用研究甚少。
研究表示从文化语言观的角度可以揭示文化习得对二语习得产生的促进作用,从而提出了在外语教学中必须培养学习者强烈的文化习得意识这一观点。
二、文化和语言的关系文化这个词,现在已经深入到社会的各个角落和人们的心理层面,不需要过多解释了。
按照文献,它最早出现在《周易》里,书云:观乎天文,以察时变;观乎人文,以化成天下。
这应当是中国人论述文化的开始。
当文化碰上二语习得时,美国语言教育家kramsch谈到语言和文化的关系时指出,语言表达、体现和象征文化现实。
换句话说,文化与语言之间是内容与形式的关系:语言既是文化的载体,又是文化的结晶;语言表达形式受文化内容与特征的制约。
语言的学习过程实际上就是文化认知与习得过程。
无论是作为母语、第二语言、还是外语,任何一门语言的学习势必伴随着文化学习。
外语学习中,语言接受与产出过程中出现的误解与僵化现象很多是由于文化移入过程的缺失或不完整性造成的。
三、文化差异决定了文化习得在二语习得中的必要性语言是文化的重要组成部分,是其传递思想、信念、道德规范、社会准则的基本方式。
没有语言,文化将难以存在和发展。
但与此同时,语言在更深层次上受文化影响,并因文化的发展变迁而不断发展更新,其对文化的反映,呈现在语言系统的各个不同层面上。
文化差异是造成对语言不同理解的主要原因。
由于不同国家发展的历史背景不同,经过长期积淀的区域文化必然存在着较大的差异,相同的词语和表达方式对于不同国家的人就可能产生不同的含义。
正因为如此,一句完全合乎语法、用词无误的话,在社会交际中也可能会引起误解,甚至给人带来不快。
宁德师专学报(哲学社会科学版)2010年第1期(总第92期)*收稿日期:2009-11-07摘要:语言是社会文化的重要组成部分,二语习得具有社会文化性。
通过研究二语习得的过程和社会文化理论的概念,结合语言的社会文化性特点,提出在社会文化理论视角下指导二语习得,开展英语口语交际的活动方法。
关键词:社会文化理论;二语习得;输入理论;口语交际1.引言语言的社会性决定了二语习得离不开一定的社会环境。
社会环境包括了文化、观念、习俗等各种因素,其中文化是最能反映社会环境的因素之一,其外在表现又可通过语言来传达。
根据语言学家的观点,一个社会的语言是它文化的一部分,又是文化的镜象折射。
因此,以语言为媒介的社会活动都具有一定的社会文化性。
在二语习得领域,以口语输出为二语习得目标和方式的口语交际,以其注重语言的交际性和实用性而被广泛运用于口语教学的各个层面,并逐步作为二语教学和测试的手段。
口语交际是语言活动的一种表现形式,所反映出的二语习得的过程是复杂而抽象的,因而对其过程的监控也存在着一定的难度。
如果能以语言社会文化性为突破口研究如何提供有效、合理的方法来监控口语交际的过程,这是具有现实意义的。
2.相关理论阐述二语习得理论认为,语言是一种需要通过学习者使用而被掌握的技能,学习者不仅需要通过学习语言知识,而且还需要适时进行语言的输出,发挥语言的交际功能。
从Krashen 的“输入假设说”到Swain 的“可理解输出假设”理论以及后来各语言学家所提出的二语习得理论,为二语习得的研究提供了大量的理论基础和研究参照。
以Gass 的二语习得模式为例来阐释二语习得的过程。
他认为,学习者通过对语言输入的感知、理解、吸收和整合,并在此基础上反复交互此过程,最后完成语言的输出。
可以看出,二语习得各个环节不是单向递进,而是动态、循环、反复的过程。
研究表明,单纯的语言知识学习并不能达到知识的内化和语言的有效使用,因为二语习得者分别受到母语和目标语所处社会文化因素的影响。
社会文化理论与二语习得研究理论、方法与实践一、本文概述本文旨在探讨社会文化理论与二语习得研究之间的关系,以及这一理论在二语习得实践中的应用。
我们将首先概述社会文化理论的基本概念和发展历程,然后分析其在二语习得研究中的重要性。
接着,我们将讨论如何将这一理论应用于实际的教学和学习环境中,以及这种方法在实践中的优势和挑战。
我们将总结社会文化理论在二语习得领域的贡献,并展望未来的研究方向。
在社会文化理论框架下,语言学习被视为一个社会化的过程,受到社会、文化、认知和心理等多个因素的影响。
这一理论强调语言学习的社会互动性和文化适应性,认为学习者通过与他人的互动和合作,以及在社会文化背景下的实践,才能有效地掌握语言。
在二语习得研究中,社会文化理论为我们提供了新的视角和研究方法。
通过关注学习者的社会文化背景和个体差异,我们可以更深入地理解二语习得的过程和机制。
同时,这一理论也为我们提供了指导教学实践的理论基础,帮助我们设计出更符合学习者需求的教学方法和策略。
然而,将社会文化理论应用于二语习得实践也面临一些挑战。
例如,如何在教学中平衡社会互动和语言知识的学习,如何评估学习者的文化适应性和社会参与度等。
这些问题需要我们进一步研究和探讨。
社会文化理论为二语习得研究提供了新的理论框架和研究方法,同时也为我们的教学实践提供了指导。
未来,我们将继续深入研究这一理论在二语习得领域的应用和发展,为二语习得的教学和学习提供更好的理论和实践支持。
二、社会文化理论概述社会文化理论(Sociocultural Theory,简称SCT)是由前苏联心理学家列夫·维果斯基(Lev Vygotsky)提出,后经其同事和后继者如亚历山大·卢里亚(Alexander Luria)和迈克尔·科尔(Michael Cole)等人的进一步发展和完善。
该理论主张人的认知发展是社会互动和文化历史过程的结果,而非个体内部心理机制独立运作的产物。
英美文化背景对二语习得的积极影响摘要:在很大程度上,不了解英美文化背景知识会阻碍二语习得者的二语习得,所以,为了更好地促进二语习得,本文主要讨论理解英美文化背景对二语习得的积极影响。
在此基础上提出了一些从文化背景入手促进二语习得的措施,希望这些措施能对二语习得者有一定的借鉴和帮助作用,从而提高二语习得者自身的学习效率和对英语语言的运用能力。
关键词:英美文化,背景,二语习得,影响一、引言英语作为一种世界性语言,为越来越多的人所学习和习得。
然而在英语学习者中, 普遍存在着学习效率不高、应用能力低下等现象。
很多研究者的研究表明,不注重文化背景和英语学习之间的重要关系, 一味地死记硬背, 是导致学习者困惑的一个重要原因。
而且Sapir -Whorf 理论认为, 讲外语意味着识别文化差异,更换文化视角。
基于此,本文主要探讨英美文化背景知识在二语习得中的重要影响以及从文化入手促进二语习得的一些措施。
二、正文正文部分主要讨论这样几个问题:文化与语言,文化与二语习得,英语文化背景对二语习得的积极影响以及从文化背景知识入手促进二语习得的措施。
下面将逐一介绍这些内容。
(一)文化与语言什么是文化?文化一般有广义和狭义之分。
广义的文化指的是人类社会历史实践过程中所创造的物质财富和精神财富的总和, 包括文学、艺术、音乐、建筑、科技、哲学等, 是人类文明的各个方面的集中反映。
从狭义上来说,文化是指人们的生活方式及习俗、习惯, 包括如何生活, 如何组织社会、家庭成员、社会成员之间的关系, 人们如何在不同的场合做出不同的表现等。
而语言是人与人之间交流的工具,它与文化是密切相关的。
它是文化的组成部分, 更是文化的载体, 容纳着文化的各个方面, 反映着文化的任何内容, 并以文化为其赖以生存并更新发展的源泉。
(二)文化与二语习得二语是指母语外的第二种语言,二语习得就是习得母语外的第二种语言。
在我国,二语习得包括了外语教师教授英语和学生学习英语。
语境对二语习得的影响语境是指一个单词或句子所处的环境和背景,它可以影响人们对单词或句子的理解,同时也对二语习得有很大的影响。
在这篇文章中,我们将探讨语境对二语习得的影响,以及如何充分利用语境来加速语言学习的进程。
语境的分类根据语言学家的研究,语境可以分为以下几类:1. 交际语境交际语境是指交流双方之间的关系、目的和情感等因素所组成的语言环境。
在语言学习过程中,交际语境对二语习得非常关键,因为它可以帮助学习者更好地理解语言中的词汇和句子表达方式。
2. 社会语境社会语境是指说话人所处的社会环境和背景,包括文化、生活习惯、价值观等方面。
对于学习语言的人来说,了解和掌握社会语境也是非常重要的,因为不同的文化和生活背景会影响到人们的语言表达方式,学习者需了解这些文化背景以避免出现不合适的语言表达。
3. 话语语境话语语境是指某个词语或句子出现的具体语境,包括前后文、词性、词义、语法等方面。
对于学习语言的人来说,理解话语语境是非常重要的,它可以帮助我们更准确地把握词汇和句子的意义,从而更好地掌握语言结构和语言表达方式。
语境对二语习得的影响语境对二语习得的影响非常重要,它可以影响学习者对单词或句子的认知和掌握程度。
下面我们来具体探讨一下语境对二语习得的影响:1. 帮助学生建立上下文语境语境可以帮助学生建立语言的上下文语境,让学生更加容易去理解新学到的单词或短语,并且能够更好地运用到实际表达中。
通过在语境中学习,学生会更好地把握到句子的意思和语义,从而更加容易理解语言。
2. 提高听力和口语能力语境对听力和口语的训练也非常重要,它可以帮助学生更好地判断听到的语言,并且可以让学生更好地运用语言描述周围的事物。
通过听取和尝试使用语境,学生会更好地掌握语言的发音和音调,并且能够更好地进行口语训练。
3. 增强语言的记忆效果语境对语言的记忆效果也非常重要,它可以帮助学习者更加深入地理解语言,并且可以加深对语言的记忆深度和记忆度。
The Function of Context of Culture in SLA form a Sociocultural PerspectivesAbstract:The context of culture is more and more important in the second language acquisition(SLA). This article will analyze the relation among the context of culture,SLA and the Sociocultural theory, the effect and function of context of culture from Sociocultural Perspectives in SFL, and thereby aims to bring and raise SLA's awareness of the importance of context of culture.Key words: Sociocultural Perspectives Context of Culture SLA1.IntroductionPeople's communication is carried out in a certain language environment, that is in the context. A Japanese student in the U.S. was killed because he failed to understand the meaning of―Freeze!‖ This tragedy has told us correct grammar couldn’t make ourselves understood in intercultural communication, that is to say, the textbook-based knowledge of a foreign language does not grant us communicate with foreigners fluently without misunderstanding. Hardly addressed in the EFL (English as a Foreign Language) classroom, polysemous and other contextually motivated usages in the target language are often elusive to its learners. If the learners aspire to use English as a living language, then their awareness of English pragmatics, that is, how English functions in natural contexts, especially in cultural context, needs to be enhanced. This paper discusses the role and reason why cultural context is worthy our attention including several important types of culture-specific expressions. And which requires SLA’s learners study and pay more attention to these complicated cultural knowledge, then it can make them stronger intercultural competence.In the process of translation, context is even more important. This article aims to present examples to demonstrate the impact of context on translation. Context refers not only to a sentence, a paragraph or a part of an article, but also the entire scene with the event-related background and the environment. Semantics depends on the context and also influenced by context. Communication takes place through a medium and in situations that are limited in time and place. Each specific situation determines what and how people communicate, and it is changed by people communicating. Situations are not universal but are embedded in a cultural habitat, which in turn conditions the situation. Language is thus to be regarded as part of culture. And communication is conditioned by the constraints of the situation-in-culture. So is translation as a form of cross-cultural communication. The complexity of translation, one of the most complex things in human history, lies in the multitude of and the delicate relationship among its relevant factors. Translation is never innocent. There is always a context in which translation takes place, always a history from which a text emerges and into which a text is transposed. The situation-in-culture has been given much emphasis.Looking back at the past 15 years in the field of second language acquisition (SLA),V ygotskian sociocultural theory, learning as changing partic ipation in situated practices, Bakhtin and the dialogic perspective and critical theory. Related to the arrival of these perspectives, the SLA field has also witnessed debates concerning understandings of learning and the construction of theory. The debate discussed in this article involves conflicting ontologies. We argue that the traditional positivist paradigm is no longer the only prominent paradigm in the field: Relativism has become an alternative paradigm. Tensions, debates and a growing diversity of theories are healthy and stimulating for a field like SLA.In this article, we characterize the several most important developments in the SLA field over the past 15 years. Although research and findings in the early decades of SLA were major accomplishments, we believe that the developments of the past 15 years are better characterized asontological, manifested in part as debates and issues. More specifically, we address the arrival of sociocultural perspectives in SLA and then discuss .SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVES ON SLAThese more recent arrivals to the field of SLA—sociocultural perspectives2on language and learning—view language use in real-world situations as fundamental, not ancillary, to learning. These researchers focus not on language as input, but as a resource for participation in the kinds of activities our everyday lives comprise. Participation in these activities is both the product and the process of learning. We provide brief summaries of the sociocultural perspectives we find typically invoked in recent SLA research, mentioning relevant studies. We do not, however, refer to all studies that draw on these perspectives. Readers are urged to see Lantolf (2000) for an overview of Vygotskian SLA studies and Zuengler and Cole (2005) for a review of language socialization research in second language learning. The order we have chosen is somewhat arbitrary. We begin, however, with Vygotskian sociocultural theory and language socialization because one or the other is often positioned as the primary theoretical framework. These two also seem to be invoked more frequently than situated learning theory, Bakhtinian approaches to language, or critical theories of discourse and social relations—the remaining perspectives we discuss. Segregating these sociocultural perspectives into their own sections allows us to address their unique disciplinary roots and contributions to SLA. Thoughwe believe researchers must take care in how they bring together these varying approaches, given their distinctiveness, we suggest that the ―hybrid interdisciplinarity‖ that many SLA scholars practice (Rampton, Roberts, Leung, & Harris, 2002, p. 373) has been productive and mirrorsthe increasing interdisciplinarity found in much of the current social science research. Vygotskian Sociocultural TheorySLA research using Vygotskian sociocultural theory first began to appear in the mid-1980s (Frawley & Lantolf, 1984, 1985) but quickly gained momentum in the mid-1990s with a special issue of the Modern Language Journal (Lantolf, 1994), devoted to sociocultural theory and second language learning. That same year, an edited volume appeared(Lantolf & Appel, 1994), and the first of a series of annual meetings dedicated to sociocultural research in SLA convened in Pittsburgh. Since then, conference presentations and publications taking this approach to SLA have only increased. Like traditional cognitive approaches to learning, Vygotskian sociocultural theory is fundamentally concerned with understanding the development of cognitive processes. However, its distinctiveness from traditional cognitive approaches can best be highlighted by citing Vygotsky: ―The social dimension of consciousness [i.e., all mental processes] is primary in time and fact. The individual dimension of consciousness is derivative and secondary‖ (1979, p.30). Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995) clarify that even though Vygotskian sociocultural theory does not deny a role for biological constraints, ―development does not proceed as the unfolding of inborn capacities, but as the transformation of innate capacities once they intertwine with socioculturally constructed meditational means‖ (p. 109). These means are the socioculturally meaningful artifacts and symbolic systems of a society, the most important of which is language. Of significance for SLA research is the understanding that when learners appropriate mediational means, such as language, made available as they interact in socioculturally meaningful activities, these learners gain control over their own mental activity and can begin to function independently. And as Lantolf (2000) notes, ―according toVygotsky, this is what development is about‖ (p. 80).SLA researchers have focused on learners’ linguistic development in the zone of proximal development (ZPD), Vygotsky’s conception of what an individual can accomplish when working in collaboration with others (more) versus what he or she could have accomplished without collaboration with others (less). The ZPD points to that individual’s learning potential, that is, what he or she may be able to do independently in the future (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 1994; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Anton, 1999, 2000; DiCamilla & Anton, 1997; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Ohta, 2000; Swain & Lapkin, 1998). Others have focused on the use of private speech or speech directed to oneself that mediates mental behavior. Private speech manifests the process in which external, social forms of interaction come to be appropriated for inner speech or mental development (Anton & DiCamilla, 1998; McCafferty, 1994, 2004b; see also McCafferty, 2004a). Still others have focused on activity theory and taskbased approaches to second language teaching and learning (Coughlan& Duff, 1994; McCafferty, Roebuck, & Wayland, 2001; Parks, 2000; Storch, 2004; Thorne, 2003).Language SocializationLanguage socialization researchers, including those in SLA, closely identify with Vygotskian sociocultural approaches to learning (see Ochs, 1988; Schiefflin & Ochs, 1986; Watson-Gegeo, 2004; Watson-Gegeo & Nielson, 2003). But in contrast to a disciplinary history in psychology and a focus on cognitive development, this theory emerged from anthropology with an interest in understanding the development of socially and culturally competent members of society. In her introduction to an edited volume comprising language socialization studies among childrenin a variety of cultures, Ochs comments that she and her co-editor, Schieffelin (1986), ―take for granted . . . that the development of intelligence and knowledge is facilitated (to an extent) by children’s communication with others,‖ and instead emphasize the ―sociocultural information [that] is generally encoded in the organization of conversational discourse‖ (pp. 2–3). As such, language socialization research has investigated the interconnected processes of linguistic and cultural learning in discourse practices, interactional routines, and participation structures and roles.3Although language socialization research in the 1980s largely investigated ways in which children are socialized into the social practices of a community, by the mid-1990s the language socialization approach was being applied to adult second language learners (see, e.g., Duff, 1995; Harklau, 1994; Poole, 1992). Whether at home, in the classroom, at work, or in any number of other environments, language learners are embedded in and learn to become competent participants in culturally, socially, and politically shaped communicative contexts. The linguistic forms used in these contexts and their social significance affect how learners come to understand and use language. In a recent review of language socialization research in SLA, Zuengler and Cole (2005) observed that even though some studies portray socialization as a smooth and successful process (e.g., Kanagy, 1999; Ohta, 1999), many other studies, mostly classroom based, demonstrate ―language socialization as potentially problematic, tension producing, and unsuccessful‖ (p. 306). For example, some researchers have found that school socialization processes can have negative effects on second language learning (Atkinson, 2003; Duff & Early, 1999; Rymes, 1997; Willet, 1995) and others have observed contradictory home and school socialization processes, which often result in students’ r elatively unsuccessful socialization to school norms (Crago, 1992; Moore, 1999; Watson-Gegeo, 1992). These findings, among others, point to the shifting emphasis in language socialization research to the sociopolitical dimensionsof discourse and social organization and their implications for language learning (Watson-Gegeo, 2004). Like language socialization, situated learning theory, to which we now turn, underscores the role of social identity and relationships as well as the historical and practical conditions of language use in learning.IMPLICATIONS OF SOCIOCULTURAL PERSPECTIVESFOR CLASSROOM PRACTICEHall (2002) observes that traditional SLA approaches seek to identify good pedagogical interventions that will most effectively ―facilitate learners’ ass imilation of new systemic knowledge into known knowledge structures‖ (p. 48). However, given their different understandings of language learning, socioculturally informed studies offer much different recommendations for improving classroom practice. For example, in seeing learning as participation, as relational and interactive, and as constrained by unequal power relations, Lave and Wenger’s perspective asks educators to consider how the practices of school relate to those outside of school, how schools and classrooms themselves are organized into communities of practice, and what kinds of participation are made accessible to students.Other studies taking sociocultural perspectives have examined classroom interactions or discourse patterns with an eye toward identifying those that best facilitate student participation (Gutierrez, Rymes, & Larsen, 1995; Nassaji & Wells, 2000; Nystrand, Gamoran, Zeiser, & Long,2003; Tharp & Gallimore, 1991). Still others have examined such topics as the kinds of guided or scaffolded assistance from teachers (or other experts) that can move students along within their ZPD (Aljaafreh &Lantolf, 1994; Anton, 1999; McCormick & Donato, 2000; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000), the effectiveness of goal-oriented dialogue between peers to mediate learning (Donato, 1994; Ohta, 2000; Swain & Lapkin,1998), and the need for dialogic and contextually sensitive approaches to language assessment ( Johnson, 2001, 2004). These studies are only a few among many, but they share the sociocultural awareness that highly situated classroom participation promotes language learning.We acknowledge that we do not specify general recommendations for transforming classroom practices, primarily because we are aware of the limits of what can be generalized across classroom contexts. Hall (2000) speaks to the situatedness of learning processes in saying that―effecting change in our classrooms will not result from imposing solutions from outside but from nurturing effectual practices that are indigenous to our particul ar contexts‖ (p. 295). Clearly, thisis no easy task for educators. It requires ongoing and intense work with every group of students and reflective awareness of how the affective and political dimensions of classroom life affect individual students’ parti cipation. However, with the increased awareness and sensitivity to local contexts that sociocultural perspectives bring us, we have reason to hope that we are closer to understanding and creating the kinds of classroom communities that learners need.language learning is essentially social.Target language interaction cannot be viewed simply as a source of “input”for autonomous and internal learning mechanism. But it has a much more central role to play in learning.Interaction itself constitutes the learning process, which is quite essentially social rather than individual in nature.The social-cultural belief in the centrality of language is a “tool for thought”, or a means if mediation, in mental activity.From the socio-cultural point of view, learning is also a mediated process. It is mediated partly through learner’s developing use and control of mental tools. Importantly is also seen as socially mediated, that is to say, it is dependent on face-to-face interaction and shared processes, such as joint problem solving and discussion.The mature, skilled individual is capable of autonomous functioning, that is of self-regulation. However, the child or the unskilled individual learns by carrying out tasks and activities under the guidance of other more skilled individuals, initially through a process of other-regulation, typically mediated through language.Successful learning involves a shift from collaborative inter-mental activity to autonomous intra-mental activity. The process of supportive dialogue which directs the attention of the learner to key features of environment, and which prompts them through successive steps of a problem, has come to be known as scaffolding.Sociocultural theory of human mental processingHe argued that language develops primarily from social interaction.The zone of proximal development,often abbreviated ZPD, is the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help.V ygotsky stated that a child follows an adult's example and gradually develops the ability to do certain tasks without help.V ygotsky's often-quoted definition of zone of proximal development presents it as:―the distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance, or in collaboration with more capable peers. For example, two 8-yesr-old children may be able to complete a task that an average 8-yesr-old can do. Next, more difficult tasks are presented with very little assistance from an adult. In the end, both children were able to complete the task. However, the styles methods they chose depended on how far they were willing to stretch their thinking process.”V ygotsky and some educators believe the role of education is to give children experiences that are within their zones of proximal development, thereby to encourage and advance their individual learning.V ygotsky’s sociocultural theory in SLALanguage development takes place in the social interactions between individuals. L2 learners advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge when they collaborate and interact with speakers of L2 who are more knowledgeable than they are (Lantolf).A learner is capable to learn in the zone of proximal development(ZPD) when there is support from interaction with a more advanced interlocutor.Vygotsky inspired research and its application to second and foreign language developmental processes and pedagogies. Vygotskian cultural-historical psychology, often called sociocultural theory in applied linguistics and SLAresearch (see discussion below), offers a framework through which cognition can be systematically investigated without isolating it from social context. As Lantolf (2004: 30–1) explains, ‘despite the label“sociocultural” the theory is not a theory of the social or of the cultural aspects of human existence . ... it is, rather, ... a theory of mind ... that recognizes the central role that social relationships and culturally constructed artifacts play in organizing uniquely human forms of thinking’.The relationships between human mental functioning and the activities of everyday life are both many and highly consequential. Participation in culturally organized practices, life-long involvement in a variety of institutions, and humans’ ubiquitous use of tools and artifacts (including language) strongly and qualitatively impact cognitive development and functioning. Within the Vygotskian tradition, culture is understood as an objective force that infuses social relationships and the historically developed uses of artifacts in concrete activity. An understanding of culture as objective implies that human activity structures, and is structured by, enduring conceptual properties of the social and material world. In this sense, culture is 1) supra-individual and independent of any single person, and 2) rooted in the historical production of value and significance as realized in shared social practice 1 (See Bakhurst 1991; Cole 1996 for discussions.) Language use and development are at the core of this objective characterization of culture both at the level of local interaction (actual communicative activity) as well as that of society and the nation state in arenas such as language policies, language ideologies, and public education as mass social intervention (to name but a few). As we will discuss briefly below and in greater detail in the chapters dealing with mediation, culturally constructed meaning is the primary means that humans use to organize and control their mental functioning and for this reason, language development and use plays a central role in Vygotsky’s theory of mind.Sociocultural theory is a theory of the development of higher mental functions that has its roots in eighteenth and nineteenth century German philosophy (particularly that of Kant and Hegel), the sociological and economic writings of Marx and Engels (specifically Theses on Feuerbach and The German Ideology), and which emerges most directly from the research of the Russian psychologist L. S. Vygotsky and his colleagues. While research establishing the relevance of culture to the formation of human mental life has been carried out within the social sciences for over a century, contemporary neuroscience research also demonstrates that phylogenetically recent cortical areas of the brain (specifically the prefrontal cortex) are hyper-adaptive to use and experience. (See LeDoux 2002.) A growing mass of evidence from a variety of disciplines has established strong connections between culture, language, and cognition, and this is nowhere more relevant than in application to organized education, where environment, information, and behavioral processes are (ostensibly) engineered to create optimal conditions for learning and development.Before we proceed further, we think that it is necessary a terminological clarification. In part due to its use by multiple research communities, there has been considerable and understandable debate about the label ‘sociocultural theory’—what it means, who it belongs to, and what its intellectual lineageis. (A colloquium at the American Association for Applied Lantolf & Thorne (forthcoming in 2005): Chapter 1 3Linguistics organized by Zuengler and Cole (2004) addressed this very issue.) There exists a general use of the term‘sociocultural’, sometimes hyphenated as ‘socio-cultural’, in general reference to social and cultural contexts of human activity (for example, Heath 1983; Ochs 1987; Ochs and Schieffelin 1984). L2 researchers, most especially Norton (2000) and her colleagues (Norton and Toohey 2004), have also situated their research within the broader socio-cultural domain. This research is concerned primarily with socialization and the discursive construction of identities (for example, gender, foreigner, native, worker, child, etc.) and is certainly theoretically commensurate with the intellectual project we develop with this volume. However, the term ‘sociocultural theory’ as we use it is meant to invoke a much more specific association with the work of Vygotsky 2 and the tradition of Russian culturalhistorical psychology, especially within applied linguistics research. (See Donato 1994; Frawley and Lantolf 1985; Lantolf 2000; Lantolf and Appel 1994; Swain 2000; Thorne 2000b; 2005.) Moreover, it is heavily focused on the impact of culturally organized and socially enacted meanings on the formation and functioning of mental activity. Our adoption of the term ‘sociocultural theory’ in this second and more constrained sense presents a paradox in that it is unlikely that Vygotsky himself ever used the term. James Wertsch, in particular, has encouraged the adoption of‘sociocultural’ over ‘cultural-historical’ to intentionally differentiate the appropriation of Vygotskian theory into the West from certain negative entailments found in the Russian tradition. (See Wertsch, del Río, and Alvarez 1995.) The critique is that the term ‘cultural-historical’ brings with it colonialist and evolutionist overtones that position industrialized societies as superior to developing societies and those without Western scientific cultures and literacies. While we agree that this is a serious problem in much of the post-enlightenment and early twentieth-century research in psychology, education, linguistics, and anthropology, in our estimation a simple name change does not rectify the situation. Another common usage problem is that the choice of‘sociocultural’ provokes confusion in that this term is used in a wide array of current as well as historical research that is in no way linked to the Marxist psychology that emerged in the writings of Vygotsky, Luria, and A. N. Leont’ev. Lantolf & Thorne (forthcoming in 2005): Chapter 1 4 In sum, and despite our preference for the label ‘cultural-historical psychology’, due to the inertia and name recognition of ‘sociocultural theory’ (hereafter SCT) for the multiple lineages of Vygotsky-inspired research in applied linguistics, we continue with this convention (and have been urged by our publisher to do so). While current SCT approaches include numerous and somewhat divergent emphases, all would agree with Wertsch (1995:56) that ‘the goal of [such] research is to understand the relationship between human mental functioning, on the one hand, and cultural, historical, and institutional s etting, on the other’.The remainder of this introductory chapter has two primary goals: to present an overview of the organization of the book, and to outline an orientation to language and communicative activity that is compatible with the theory of mind and mental development that informs our discussion of L2 learning.Two categories of context•Context of culture•Context of situation( Malinknowski, 1923)•Context of culture means the total way of life of a people, which refers to the patterns of customs, traditions, social habits, values, beliefs and languages of a society (Dai Weidong, 1989)文化语境与语言•Context of culture influences language•Language reflects the environment in which people live•Language is a mirror of culture•Language is culture•Eskimo--- three words for snow (falling snow, fallen snow, snow packed into ice)•English--- one word (snow)•Hopi--- one word for anything that flies•English--- aeroplane, dragonfly, butterfly•Navaho--- no distinction between horse and horses•English--- horse/horsesThe impact of context of culture on language at various levels •At lexical level•At pragmatic level•At discourse level•At stylistic levelChinese and English words compared••1) different context of culture, similar or same connotative meaning.•Fox 狐狸•Dove 鸽子•Bee 蜜蜂•White 白色•Red 红色•Rose 玫瑰different context of culture, different connotative meaning•Owl 猫头鹰•Dragon 龙•Dog 狗•Green 绿色•Blue 蓝色•Fat meat 肥肉•青天 blue sky•青山 green hills•青丝 black hair•红茶 black tea•红糖 brown sugar•黑啤 dark beerconnotative meaning is specific for A context of culture and vacant for B contextof culture•Turtle 乌龟•Daffodil 黄水仙•Greetings vary with contextsof culture•1) talking about eating•2) talking about weather•3) talking about actions2.The influence of cultural context on SLAReflecting people’s tradition, culture is a complex factor. The culture between different nations is also different. Translation is a cross-culture exchange, so next we will discuss the influence of culture, religion and idiom on translation.3.1.CustomIf the culture is different, the custom is different. So in doing translation, the related custom must be consid ered. Let’s first see a sentence; ―Quick,Nancy.‖Mike said and swung the car into the left lane.The translated version is ―快,南西。