摘要语言学习是一种内在的过程自50 年代以来第二语言习得研究经过了对比研究这些不同的阶段体现了不同的理论基础每一种数据分析方法对第二语言习得研究均有其独特的贡献错误分析及语言使用分析这几种语言数据分析方法的阐述并从不同的语言分析方法中获得一些有关外语教学的启示语言数据分析方法AbstractGiven that learning is an internal process which cannot be observed directly, researchers make inferences as to the nature of the process in part from an analysis of the product, learner language. In order to improve the quality of these inferences, it is useful to examine the historical development of modes of data analysis, noting how different data analysis procedures evolved, with each successive type of analysis reflecting a new stage of awareness of what second language acquisition entails. And the understanding of the second language acquisition helps to improve language teaching.In second language acquisition research, there are different development stages, i.e. contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysisIntroductionSince second language acquisition is a new, uncharted field, it is by no means obvious how such investigation ought to be conducted. Many of its original research methodologies are consequently borrowed from first language acquisition research. Still others have come from education and the related disciplines. As their experience grows, however, second language acquisition researchers are becoming more creative in the way they seek answers to questions in their unique field of specialization. Nowadays, in second language acquisition research, there are various means that have been employed to collect SLA data. In this paper, we will trace the historical development of the types of data analysis in an attempt to come to a better understanding of the second language acquisition process. The discussion will be limited to the contrastive analysis, error analysis, performance analysis as well as their application and limitations. And some implications for foreign language teaching will be included in the discussion.Since contrastive analysis, error analysis and performance analysis are the ways to study learner performance, this paper will be carried out from this perspective. It begins with a discussion on contrastive analysis and its application and limitations. Then, Chapter Two gives an account of error analysis with its application and limitations. Chapter Three focuses on performance analysis with reference to some aspects of its study. By analyzing contrastive analysis, error analysis and performance analysis, we can be enlightened with regard to the implications adopted while teaching and learning a second language. To facilitate second language learning and teaching, teachers should adapt their teaching techniques and methods to meet learners’ requirements and help L2 learners to acquire the language effectively. Therefore, the last chapter comes up with the implications for foreign language teaching, which are based on the application and limitations of these modes of data analysis.Chapter OneContrastive AnalysisBefore the SLA field was established, researchers from the 1940s to the 1960s conducted contrastive analysis, systematically comparing two languages. They were motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between particular native languages and target languages, believing that a more effective pedagogy would result when these were taken into consideration.1.1 What Is Contrastive Analysis?Contrastive linguistics is defined as a subdiscipline of linguistics concerned with the comparison of two or more languages or subsystems of languages in order to determine both the differences and similarities between them. The contrastive analysis is concerned with not only the comparison and contrast of two or more languages to determine the differences as well as similarities between them, but also with the possible consequences for a given field of application. What’s more, it is also the identification of probable areas of difficulty in learning another language.As Lado (Ellis, 1999) makes clear, ‘The teacher who has made a comparison of the foreign language with the native language of the students will know better what the real problems are and can provide for teaching them.’ CA is developed in order to predict the areas of difficulty that learners with specific L1s would experience, so that teaching could provide massive practice to eliminate the chance of errors induced by the first language. This approach is based on the similarities and differences that exist between two or more languages, at the same time taking into account a number of axioms about L2 learning behaviour.1.2 The Contrastive Analysis HypothesisThe contrastive analysis hypothesis has its roots in behaviorism and structuralism. Behavioristic theories of human learning emphasize interfering elements of learning,claiming that interference means difficulty in learning. Structuralism lays a strong emphasis on differences between languages. Structural linguistics provides tools with which to describe accurately the two languages in question, and to match those two descriptions against each other to determine the differences and similarities between them.The conviction that linguistic differences can be used to predict learning difficulty gives rise to the contrastive analysis hypothesis---Where two languages are similar, positive transfer will occur; where they are different, negative transfer, or interference, will result.In general, the contrastive analysis hypothesis can be stated in three main versions, the strong version, the weak version, and the moderate version. The strong version is proposed by C. Fries and R. Lado. It emphasizes a priori prediction of difficulties in learning a second language. It states that all L2 errors can be predicted by identifying the differences between the target language and the learner’s L1. The weak version is proposed by Wardhaugh, which only recognizes the significance of interference across languages and tries to explain those difficulties. This version requires of the linguist only that he use the best linguistic knowledge available to him to account for observed difficulties in second language learning. It does not require the prediction of those difficulties, and conversely, of those learning points which do not create any difficulties. However, both versions agree that the greater the differences between the two languages, the greater the difficulties. That is, both versions equate differences between two languages with difficulties in L2 learning. The moderate version proposed by Oller and Ziahosseiny differs from the other two versions in that it emphasizes the significance of minimal distinctions, which may actually cause the greatest interferences and difficulties. According to them, the greatest difficulties in the second language are neither apparent similarities nor apparent differences, but subtle distinctions exist.However, from our teaching experience, we find that both great differences and subtle differences can cause difficulties. If we weaken the claim of predictability of the strong version, and integrate the three versions by paying attention to both greatand subtle differences between the two languages, we can make CA more useful to our teaching practice.1.3 Objectives of CAThe contrastive analysis is based on the following assumptions: A) Second language learning involves overcoming difficulties in the linguistic systems of the target language. B) The main difficulties in learning a second language are caused by interference from the first language. C) Contrastive analysis can predict, or at least account for, difficulties in L2 learning. D) Teaching materials based on contrastive analysis can reduce the effects of interference and difficulties and facilitate L2 learning. A number of fundamental and applied objectives have traditionally been attributed to CA. According to Van Els et al (1984), CA has the following three major objectives:1. Providing insights into similarities and differences between languagesThe first object can be interpreted as an attempt at establishing linguistic universals and language-specific characteristics of languages. Languages are not structurally isomorphic. Often there is divergence or convergence between L1 and L2. We speak of divergence for the L2 learner when there are more structural elements available in the target language for expressing specific meanings than can be found in the source language, while the opposite holds true in the case of convergence.As soon as any two languages have been described using the same theoretical categories, a work of reference can be provided for a systematic comparison and contrast of the major patterns in the two languages at the level or levels concerned. Comparison of a category in one language with a category in another language first of all presupposes a criterion of equivalence. To establish that the two systems are comparable, we first need to show their contextual equivalence, then ask to what extent they are formally equivalent.Let’s take the attributive possessive pronouns of English and their counterparts inChinese to illustrate this point. Their contextual equivalence can be shown by giving their principal contextual similarities and differences.First, both languages have the units “sentences”, “clause”, “phrase” and “word”. Secondly, both languages have a word class “noun” normally operating as the head of the nominal phrase and a word class “pronoun”, which may occur in the nominal phrase to replace the noun or the whole nominal phrase. Thirdly, the English attributive possessive pronoun and its counterpart in Chinese can only precede the noun it modifies. However, English attributive possessive pronouns have wider use than their counterparts in Chinese. English possessive pronouns, with the exception of the third person singular masculine and nonhuman, each has an attributive form as well as a predicative and nominal form. The predicative and nominal forms of possessive pronouns function independently as nouns rather than as determiners in prenominal positions. The possessive pronoun in Chinese has the same form whether it is used attributively or predicatively and nominally.PERSONENGLISH CHINESE PERSON ENGLISH CHINESE 1my 我的 3 masc his 他的 1+our 我们的 3 fem her 她的 你的 3 nonhum its 它的 2 您的 3+masc 他们的 2+your你们的 3+fem 她们的3+nonhum their 它们的From the table above, we can see that the first person attributive possessive pronouns, singular and plural, of the two languages have one-to-one correspondence. The major differences lie in the second and the third persons. First, in English the second person attributive possessive pronoun has only one form “your” for both singular and plural, whereas in Chinese the second person possessive pronoun has three forms: “你的” for singular familiar, “您的” for singular polite, and “你们的” forplural. Secondly, in English the third person plural attributive possessive pronoun has only one form “their” for masculine, feminine and nonhuman. But in Chinese, there are three different forms: “他们的” for masculine, “她们的” for feminine and “它们的” for nonhuman.As shown in the above example, the beginners may have difficulty in using the possessive pronouns in English and their counterparts in Chinese. The following sentences have the same meaning-- This is their book. /This book is theirs. /这是他们(她们)的书. In Chinese, the sentence only has one form, but in English it can be expressed with either attributive or nominal possessive pronouns. So it is probable for the beginners to confuse these two forms. Then based on the findings of the analysis, we can formulate a prediction of probable difficulties and errors in L2 learning, or account for existing difficulties and errors.2.Explanation and prediction of difficulties in second language learningAttempts have been made to formalize the prediction of difficulties. Prator (James, 1980) proposes a hierarchy of six levels of difficulty, which are applicable to grammatical features of language.Level 1—Transfer: When there is complete one-to-one correspondence between items or structures of the two languages in contrast, the learner can simply transfer positively these items or structures from the native language to the target language. These items or structures will cause no difficulties. For example, both French and English have the word ‘table’, which can have the same meaning in both languages.Level 2—Coalescence: When two or more items in the first language become coalesced into one in the target language, the leaner should overlook the distinction he has become used to when he uses the item in the second language. For instance, “他们/它们/她们” in Chinese equals to ‘they’ in English.Level 3—Underdifferentiation: When an item in the native language is absent in the target language, the learner must avoid that item when he uses the target language. To the English speakers, nouns may have singular and plural forms, while in Chinese the nouns only have singular form.Level 4—Reinterpretation: When an item that exists in the native language is given a new shape or distribution, the learner must learn that new shape or distribution. An example is French expertise (expert’s assessment) and English expertise (skillfulness).Level 5—Overdifferentiation: This is the opposite to level 3, that is, when a new item in the target languages bears little, if any, similarity to that in the native language, the leaner must learn it anew. ‘Do’ acts as an auxiliary verb in English, in Chinese there is no equivalent.Level 6—Split: This is the opposite to level 2, that is, when one item in the native language becomes two or more in the target language, the learner must learn to make a new distinction. To the English speaker learning French, ‘director’ becomes ‘directeur’ (masculine) and ‘directrice’ (feminine).3. Developing course materials for language teachingThis objective can be viewed as derived from the two objectives mentioned above, and is first stated in Fries (Van Els et al, 1984):‘The most effective materials for teaching a second language are those that are based upon a scientific description of the language to be learned, carefully compared with a parallel description of the native language of the learner.’And in the preface of Linguistics Across Cultures written by Lado, it is said:‘The plan of the book rests on the assumption that we can predict and describe the patterns that will cause difficulty in learning, and those that will not cause difficulty, by comparing systematically the language and culture to be learned with the native language and culture of the student. In our view, the preparation of up-to-date pedagogical and experimental materials must be based on this kind of comparison.’1.4 Application and Limitations of CA1. ApplicationContrastive analysis as applied to L2 teaching emphasizes differences betweenlanguages rather than similarities, and it is pedagogically-oriented, with the aim to discover and predict learning problems and difficulties. It has been used in the following areas: prediction, diagnosis of a proportion of the L2 errors committed by learners with a common L1, the design of testing instruments for such learners, course design and teaching.PredictionThere are four things that contrastive analysis can predict: First, what will cause problems; Second, difficulty in L2 learning; Third, errors that learners with the common L1 will make. The prediction of errors can mean either the prediction that there will be errors in certain areas or the prediction of the forms of errors. Contrastivists have more cautiously made predictions of the specific types of errors; and Fourth, the tenacity of certain errors, that is, the strong resistance of these errors to extinction through time and teaching.Diagnosis of ErrorsIt is important for both the teacher and the learner to know why certain errors are committed. Contrastive analysis can provide this kind of knowledge. It is on the basis of such diagnostic knowledge that the teacher can organize feedback to the learner and do some remedial work. Knowing why he has committed these errors provides the basis for the learner to monitor and avoid these same errors in the future.TestingOne of the requirements of a good language test is validity, that is, it should be a true measure of the student’s command of the language he has been learning. Test validity is usually achieved by testing a representative sample of the students’ repertoire. This is where contrastive analysis has a part to play. In general, contrastive analysis has three roles to play in testing. First, it can carry suggestions about what to test (such as the difficulties or the errors L2 learners will meet); Secondly, it can show to what degree to test different L2 items; Thirdly, it can suggest how to test these L2items. For objective tests, a contrastive analysis of L1 and L2 will suggest the type of distractors to use. The distractors may be the errors L2 learners with common L1 will make or the difficulties they will meet when learning L2. For integrative tests such as dictation and cloze, contrastive analysis may suggest which items are to be included in the dictation and which items are to be deleted in the cloze. That’s to say the phonologically similar items can be included in the dictation and the items having no close relation in morphology, lexics or grammar can be deleted in the cloze.Course Design and TeachingContrastive analysis can specify those features of L2 which are different from corresponding features of L1, and those which are identical. James (1980) suggests while the learner is exposed to all parts of the L2, he must be given opportunities to confirm his positive transfer on the one hand and to learn what he does not know on the other. Thus the importance of including both different and identical features in teaching materials is emphasized. Those L2 patterns not paralleled by equivalents in L1 will be introduced to the learner. Their presentation will be facilitated by the prior introduction of the identical variants taught at an earlier stage. Since it is a universal principle of education that learning should proceed from the simple to the difficult, it follows that items that are identical in L1 and L2 should be taught first. Contrastive analysis can show which items in the two languages are identical and which are different, and how identical and how different they are. Thus contrastive analysis can provide a basis for grading of teaching materials. Contrastive teaching involves presenting to the learner at the same time all the terms in a L2 system in contrast with the corresponding L1 system. The systems concerned may be grammatical, phonological, or lexical. These pairs of terms form problem-pairs. Such pairs should be suitably contextualized and analyzed. For these items in particular, we can use intensive techniques such as repetition or drills, in order to overcome the interference and establish the necessary new habits.2. LimitationsWhile the association of CAH with behaviorism gave it academic legitimacy, it ultimately led to its downfall. When predictions arising from CAs are finally subjected to empirical test, serious flaws are revealed. There are doubts concerning the ability of CA to predict errors. While CA predicts some errors, it clearly does not anticipate all. If a majority of learner errors are not caused by interference, then CA is of limited value, far less than is thought to be the case when CA first started. For instance, the way an error is classified, e.g. due to L1 interference or not, differs from study to study. Whiteman and Jackson (1972), who tested the predictions of four different CAs of English and Japanese by studying the English performance of 2500 Japanese secondary school students on a multiple choice and a cloze test, conclude that contrastive analysis is inadequate to predict the interference problems of a language learner. The interference plays such a small role in language learning performance that no contrastive analysis, no matter how well it is conceived, can correlate highly with performance data, at least at the level of syntax. Thus, a comparison of the learner’s L1 and L2 can’t help to predict or explain very much about the process of SLA.Although CA is as old as FLT itself, attempts at converting descriptive data from CA into teaching programs have by no means always been successful. Neither has there been systematic research into the effect of teaching methods based on CA; it has never been demonstrated that course materials based on CA are more effective than other materials based on different principles. The realization that linguistic difference can not be equated with learning problem has made people reticent to implement the objectives of CA.In a word, CA ascribes most errors to interference of L1, but empirical evidence has shown that interlingual errors (i.e. errors caused by the interference of the learner’s L1) only constitute a small proportion of L2 learners’ errors, and that among other factors, intralingual effects of learning (i.e. result from the structure of the L2 itself) play an important role. CA which aims to predict errors resulting from L1 interference fails to account for other types of errors. Linguistic differences betweenL1 and L2 do not automatically lead to L2 learning problems, and not all L2 learning problems can be retraced to linguistic differences between L1 and L2. As the interference was replaced by other explanations of learning difficulties in 1970s, CA declined. But as a methodological option, it isn’t abandoned. As such, it is useful in a broader approach to detecting the source of error, namely error analysis.Chapter TwoError AnalysisAt the end of 1960s, people began to question one of the main objectives of contrastive analysis, namely the explanation and prediction of L2 learning problems. People began to realize more and more that this approach left the L2 learner out of consideration. The fact that there was no empirical basis for CA in turn resulted in more attention being paid to error analysis. This notion became popular in L2 learning research after 1970.2.1 What Is Error Analysis?Error analysis is an activity which is at once ancient and new. It is ancient in that since ancient times this technique has been used by teachers, but in an informal and intuitive way. It is new because as a scientific technique based on psycholinguistics it was developed in the late sixties. Along with the birth of psycholinguistics, the focus in second language teaching shifts from the view of the teacher as the controller of language learning towards a more learner-centered view which stresses learners’ creative role in L2 learning. One major result of this shift has been the development and application of error analysis as a chief means of both assessing learners’ learning in general and of the degree of match between their learning syllabus and the teacher’s teaching one.According to Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, error analysis is the study and analysis of the errors made by second and foreign language learners. It is a methodology of describing L2 learners’ language systems. EA aims to find out how well the learner knows and learns a language, and it obtains information on common difficulties in language learning as an aid in teaching or in the preparation of teaching materials. It also provides data from which inferences about the nature of the second language learning process can be made.Error analysis is distinguished from contrastive analysis by its examination of errors attributable to all possible sources, not just those which result from theinterference of the first language. Therefore, although error analysis and contrastive analysis are not mutually exclusive, the former can easily supersede the latter.2.2 Fundamentals and Significance of EACorder (1981) claims that learners’ errors provide to the researcher evidence of how the target language is learned or acquired and what strategies or procedures the learner is employing in his discovery of the language.Human learning is fundamentally a process involving making errors, which forms an important aspect of learning any skill or acquiring any knowledge. Language learning is like any other human learning. In the course of learning a second language, learners will produce utterances which are ungrammatical or otherwise ill-formed, when judged by generally accepted rules of the language they are learning. This is obvious not only to teachers of languages but to any native speaker of the target language who comes in contact with them. That is to say L2 learning, like L1 acquisition, is trial and error in nature, hence errors are unavoidable. Errors made by L2 learners can be observed, analyzed, classified, and described. In errors made by L2 learners lie some of the keys to the understanding of the process of second language learning.A learner’s errors, then, provide evidence of the system of the language that he is using at a particular point in the course. Second language learners can be viewed as actively constructing rules from the data they encounter and gradually adapting these rules in the direction of the target language system. Then the speech of second language learners can be analyzed in its own terms. Learners’ errors are the clearest evidence for the learner’s developing systems and can offer us insights into how they process the data of the language. If learners actively construct a system for the second language, we will not expect all their incorrect notions about it to be a simple result of transferring rules from their first language. We will expect many of their incorrect notions to be explicable by direct reference to the target language itself. This is, in fact precisely what error analysis reveals. In addition to errors due to transferring rulesfrom the mother tongue, learners also make many errors which show that they are processing the second language in its own terms. Errors of this type are often similar to those produced by the child in the mother tongue and suggest that the second language learner is employing similar strategies, notably generalization and simplification. From these errors, which represent the product of learning, we can also gather hints about the underlying process of learning.2.3 Description and Explanation of ErrorsAccording to the stages in which errors are made, Corder (James, 1998) identifies three stages: The first is the presystematic stage. In this stage the learner is only vaguely aware that the target language has a particular system, but his use of the target language is through random guessing. He is neither able to correct his errors nor to explain them. The second is the systematic stage. In this stage the learner has discovered some rules of the system of the target language, but is inconsistent in applying these rules. He usually cannot correct his errors although he can explain why he makes them. The third is the postsystematic stage. In this stage the learner is quite consistent in his use of the target language. When he makes an error, he can both correct it and explain why it is incorrect. Though errors still exist in this stage, the occurrence of errors becomes infrequent.Errors of CompetenceTo be sure, L2 learners still commit errors which can be traced to L1 interference and as such are termed interlingual errors. They are caused by the structure of L1. A large number of similar errors are being committed by second language learners, regardless of their L1.These errors are called intralingual errors. They are caused by the structure of L2. Interlingual errors depend on linguistic differences between L1 and L2 and are traditionally interpreted as interference problems. Intralingual errors are by definition not predictable on the basis of CA, they can not be traced back to differences between L1 and L2, but they relate to a specific interpretation of the target。
