Sociocultural theory and SLA 社会文化理论与二语习得

二语习得理论--西班牙语
二语得是指一个人用非母语的方式研究和掌握第二语言的过程。

西班牙语是世界上使用人数较多的语言之一，对于非西班牙语国家
的研究者来说，理解和掌握二语得理论对于研究西班牙语至关重要。

以下是几种常见的二语得理论：
1. 第二语言得理论（Second Language Acquisition Theory，简称SLA理论）：SLA理论主要关注非母语研究者在研究第二语言过程中的认知和语言发展。

该理论认为，语言得是一个主动、逐渐的过程，需要不断的输入、语言处理和反馈来促进语言能力的提升。

2. 社会文化理论（Sociocultural Theory）：社会文化理论强调
了社会环境和交互对于二语得的重要性。

该理论认为，研究者通过
参与真实的交流和社会活动，获得语言输入和反馈，从而提高语言
能力。

3. 互动式理论（Interactionist Theory）：互动式理论认为，研
究者在与他人的互动中，通过使用语言进行沟通和交流来发展语言
能力。

在语言研究中，互动扮演着重要的角色，通过与他人合作解决问题和表达意见，研究者能够积极参与语言得过程。

4. 个体差异理论（Individual Differences Theory）：个体差异理论着重于研究研究者在语言得过程中的个体差异。

该理论认为，研究者的年龄、智力、研究策略以及研究背景等都可能影响二语得的效果。

了解和应用这些二语习得理论，可以帮助学习者更有效地学习西班牙语。

无论是个体学习者还是教师，理解二语习得理论都有助于制定合适的教学方法和策略，促进学习者的语言发展。

二语习得社会文化理论论文一、社会文化理论的学科定位社会文化理论研究社会的、交际的问题，认为习得语言的必要途径是与其他人进行真正的社会互动或者交流。

社会文化理论不仅是一个社会方向的研究，也是心理语言学角度的研究，我们认为社会文化理论属于第三代心理语言学研究。

里昂且夫（Ｌｅｏｎｔｉｅｖ）曾从心理语言学角度对社会文化理论的研究内容进行了阐述，认为在上世纪５０年代社会文化理论发展伊始，心理语言学的主流理论是行为主义，研究重点是独立的语言单位（如词）的加工过程；到了６０年代，出现了第二代心理语言学，以语言学家乔姆斯基和心理学家乔治•米勒为代表，他们认为语言习得的是抽象的规则，而非独立的语言单位，研究重点是语言学习者对句子的理解和输出。

里昂且夫认为第二代学者的研究更倾向于语言学，对心理学方面的研究较少。

而且，这一代的学者对语言的形式特征更感兴趣。

前两代的学者们显然都没有关注语言的意义，也没有对语言作为符号工具如何被用于交流和思维等问题展开研究；而且在对个体的研究上，前两代心理学学者不仅将个体与社会隔离开来，而且通常还会脱离实际交际过程，个体之间的交际被简化为复制性的从说者到听者的信息转移，即说者输出的信息，会被听者以完全一样的形式理解；第三代心理语言学研究则更加倾向于心理学研究，对语言学方面的研究相对较少，研究焦点也从原来的对句子、文本的理解和加工转移到了交际和思维过程的心理学分析。

第三代心理语言学并不是对服务于言语行为的心理结构的实现进行研究，而是探索在活动中使用语言（作为工具）的不同策略进行研究。

当活动的目的是对他人产生影响的时候，活动即为交际性的；当活动的目的是对自身产生影响的时候，活动即为认知性的。

两种活动是相辅相成、辩证性存在的，因此从一开始就有必要对二者进行管理。

也就是说，自我导向的言语活动，来源于他人导向的言语活动，在本质上二者都是交际形式的一种。

将交际活动优先于对抽象性语言规则加工过程的习得进行研究，使第三代心理语言学将言语（和书面语言）对人类具体的社会和思维活动的调节作为研究重点，认为言语活动是有动机性和目的性的。

SLA 期末考试提纲Week 9Chapter 1 Introducing Second Language AcquisitionChapter 2 Foundations of Second Language AcquisitionPART ONE：Definition：1.Second Language Acquisition （SLA）: a term that refers both to the study of individualsand groups who are learning a language subsequent to learning their first one as young children, and to the process of learning that language.2.Formal L2 learning: instructed learning that takes place in classrooms.rmal L2 learning：SLA that takes place in naturalistic contexts。

4.First language/native language/mother tongue （L1）: A language that is acquirednaturally in early childhood，usually because it is the primary language of a child's family。

A child who grows up in a multilingual setting may have more than one “first”language.5.Second language （L2): In its general sense，this term refers to any language that isacquired after the first language has been established. In its specific sense，this term typically refers to an additional language which is learned within a context where it is societally dominant and needed for education, employment，and other basic purposes.The more specific sense contrasts with foreign language，library language, auxiliary （帮助的,辅助的）language，and language for specific purposes。

《二语习得理论》评介徐海铭（上海外国语大学英语学院，上海200083，上海）Bill VanPatten & Jessica Williams (eds.) 2007. Theories in Second LanguageAcquisition. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence. vii + 261 pp.一、内容简介二语习得（SLA）研究已历经40多年的发展，对其进行全面反思无疑有益于本学科的未来发展。

这就是《二语习得理论》一书的编撰主旨。

本文先略述，后简评。

第1章“导言：理论本质”。

由VanPatten & Willliams撰写。

作者认为，许多人把理论和模型混为一谈，其实，两者迥然有异。

理论是阐述现象为何以现在的方式发生，而模型是对某一现象诸多过程的描述。

模型强调现象的不同成分是如何互动的，不需要解释为何。

作者列举的SLA领域观察到的10大普遍现象是：#1：接触输入对SLA必不可少；#2：许多SLA 随机发生；#3：学习者逐渐了解到的东西要从比输入中接触到的东西多；#4：习得某特定结构时，学习者的言语输出经常按照可预测的阶段遵循可预测的路径；#5：二语学习的结果有差异；#6：二语学习的变化跨越语言的子系统；#7：频率对SLA的影响有限；#8：学习者的L1对SLA的影响有限；#9：讲授对SLA的影响有限；#10：输出（学习者的产出）对语言学习影响有限。

第2章“SLA早期理论”，由相同作者撰写。

他们认为，行为主义理论缺乏真正的证据。

该理论论证了观察到的现象#1、#2和#5。

儿童使用语言的创造性、语言知识的先天性特征和人脑的语言习得装置等理论挑战并改变了原先SLA研究格局。

示范性研究案例是Larsen-Freeman（1975）关于成人学习语法词素的自然顺序研究。

监控理论支持#1、#2、#4、#5、#8、#9、#10。

第3章“语言理论、普遍语法和SLA”，由Lydia. White撰写，介绍生成语言学研究者如何从普遍语法角度考察L2学习者的“过渡语能力”。

二语习得研究作为一个独立学科已有40年历史。

该学科目前已形成两大对立阵营：认知派与社会派(或社会文化派)(Larsen-Freeman , 2007; Zuengler & Miller, 2006)。

认知派始于20世纪60年代，社会派始于20世纪80年代(例如Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1988)。

1997年《现代语言》(The Modern Language Journal )组织公开论战，为两派的交流搭建平台，辩论持续到1998年。

论战双方情绪对立，矛盾激化(Watson-Gegeo, 2004)。

时过10年，2007年12月《现代语言》再次组织两派辩论，双方没有丝毫妥协的迹象。

本文将阐述二语习得研究领域认知派与社会派之间的争辩，旨在让我国二语习得研究者认清这场争辩的本质，引发深层次的思考，进一步推动我国二语习得研究向纵深发展。

本文分为三部分。

第一部分概述认知派与社会派的形成和发展。

第二部分综述两派存在的主要分歧。

第三部分评析两派的争辩。

认知派与社会派的形成与发展为了更好地理解当前认知派与社会派的争评析二语习得认知派与社会派论战文秋芳 北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心11.1 认知派简史早在20世纪中期，Weinreich 语言学习观是适时提供正反馈。

1959年Skinner 中图分类号：H0-06 文献标识码：A 文章编号：摘 要： 二部分综述两派存在的主要分歧，第三部分评析两派的争辩。

主题词： 二语习得；认知派；社会派；社会文化理论类研究 (Larsen-Freeman, 2007)：(1)对二语学习者错误的研究(例如Corder, 1967；Selinker, 1972)；(2)英语语素习得研究(例如B a i l ey, Madden, Krashen, 1974; B rown, 1973; Dulay & B urt, 1974)。

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。

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。

二语习得引论翻译笔记嘿呀，咱这就来聊聊二语习得引论的翻译笔记哈。

一、啥是二语习得引论呢。

咱得先搞清楚，二语习得引论呀，就是研究人们怎么学习除了母语之外的其他语言的这么一门学问。

打个比方哈，咱中国人学英语，这学习过程里面的各种规律、特点啥的，就是二语习得引论要研究的事儿。

就像你学骑自行车，得先知道怎么上车、怎么保持平衡，这二语习得引论就有点像告诉你学外语的那些“骑车技巧”。

二、重要的概念翻译。

1. 语言输入（language input）这个呀，就是你在学习外语的时候，接收到的各种语言信息。

比如说你听英语广播、看英语电影，这些里面的英语对话、词汇啥的，都是语言输入。

就好比你要做饭，食材就是语言输入，没有食材可做不出好菜，没有足够的语言输入，那外语也学不好呀。

2. 语言输出（language output）这就是你自己用外语去表达啦。

比如说你用英语写作文、和外国人对话。

这就像你把做好的菜端上桌给大家看，通过语言输出，才能知道自己学得怎么样，也能让自己学得更好。

3. 中介语（interlanguage）嘿这个概念有点意思哈。

它指的是学习者在学习外语过程中，形成的一种既不同于母语又不同于目标语的语言系统。

就好比你从中国到美国，路上有个过渡的地方，中介语就是这个过渡的语言状态。

比如说一个中国学生学英语，可能会说出“He no come.”这种句子，这就是中介语的表现啦。

三、二语习得的理论翻译。

1. 行为主义理论（Behaviorist Theory）这个理论呀，就觉得语言学习就像训练小狗做动作一样，通过不断地重复和强化，就能学会。

比如说你不停地重复单词“apple”，然后每次说对了就给自己一个小奖励，慢慢就记住啦。

但是呢，这个理论也有缺点，它太注重外在的刺激和反应了，没考虑到学习者内心的想法。

2. 认知理论（Cognitive Theory）认知理论就不一样啦，它觉得学习语言得靠大脑的思考和理解。

就像你拼图一样，得把各个语言知识的小块在脑袋里拼成一个完整的画面。

文教论坛从社会文化理论视角浅析二语教学启示赵凯杨西北大学一、理论介绍维果斯基的社会文化理论，也被统称为文化-历史理论，自20世纪80年代以来，逐渐成为应用语言学和第二语言习得这两个研究领域的新方向。

正是由于这一理论，理论学家才开始从语言学习者的心理和心理能力发展的角度来研究二语习得，而不是将其视为一个单纯的语言学习和表达的过程。

维果斯基认为，语言学习与其它高级心理功能一样，产生在社会交往和沟通过程中。

也就是说，社会文化理论强调儿童，成人之间的互动以及涉及语言学习的社会文化背景的重要性。

这一观点的提出，为二语教学提供了一个全新的角度：首先，由于语言发展源于个体之间的社会互动，语言习得只能在学习者和对话者之间的交流沟通中获得，所以社会互动是学习的中介。

二语教学必须根据师生之间或生生之间的互动产生；其次，该理论强调语言和其它象征系统一样，在学习新语时可以作为思维和认知发展的中介。

因此，语言本身并不是语言教学的目标，而发掘学习者的潜能才是最终目的。

社会文化理论的内核体现在一些相互关联的核心概念和子理论中，如调节、最近发展区等。

本文将进一步通过对子理论的分析来展示社会文化理论的内涵。

二、社会文化理论视角下的二语教学启示(一)发展实质与支架教学社会文化理论将从低级社会心理功能发展到更高级的社会心理功能的过程分为三个阶段：最初，儿童的成长，完全依赖他人，甚至周围环境也很容易影响他们，这就是所谓的对象调节。

在下一阶段，儿童能够在更有经验的人的帮助下完成任务。

在这一过程中，帮助主要是由语言辅助来完成，这被视为它物调节。

最终，孩子们逐渐获得这一技能，并达到自我调节和自我管理。

基于以上观点，我们可以推断出成功的学习绝不是一个孤立的过程，它涉及“从协作的心理活动转向自主的心理活动”。

因此，在二语教学过程中，教师不应该在传授新知的同时对学生个体施加过多压力，而应充分考虑支架教学的作用。

例如，一个语言课应该涉及团队协作，如小组讨论。