WeChat ID Shanrenwutaibai Intro 服务基础英语教与学，精研儿童教育，提供与此相关的电脑、手机操作指南。 本篇选自克拉申《第二语言习得的原则与实践(Principles and Practice in SLA）》第二章“第二语言习得理论”A节“有关第二语言习得的五个假说”第四个假说，武太白翻译。敬请转载到您的QQ空间、分享到您的朋友圈！也欢迎朋友们和你们的朋友们都来关注我的公众账号“武太白金星人”，这是对我莫大的鼓励！ ------------------------ ----------------------- A third part of the input hypothesis says that input must contain i + 1 to be useful for language acquisition, but it need not contain only i + 1. It says that if the acquirer understands the input, and there is enough of it, i + 1 will automatically be provided. In other words, if communication is successful, i + 1 is provided. As we will discuss later, this implies that the best input should not even attempt to deliberately aim at i + 1. We are all familiar with syllabi that try to deliberately cover i + 1. There is a "structure of the day", and usually both teacher and student feel that the aim of the lesson is to teach or practice a specific grammatical item or structure. Once this structure is "mastered", the syllabus proceeds to the next one. This part of the input hypothesis implies that such a deliberate attempt to provide i + 1 is not necessary. As we shall see later, there are reasons to suspect that it may even be harmful. Thus, part (3) of the input hypothesis is: (3) When communication is successful, when the input is understood and there is enough of it, i + 1 will be provided automatically. The final part of the input hypothesis states that speaking fluency cannot be taught directly. Rather, it "emerges" over time, on its own.4 The best way, and perhaps the only way, to teach speaking, according to this view, is simply to provide comprehensible input. Early speech will come when the acquirer feels "ready"; this state of readiness arrives at somewhat different times for different people, however. Early speech, moreover, is typically not grammatically accurate. Accuracy develops over time as the acquirer hears and understands more input. Part (4) of the input hypothesis is thus: (4) Production ability emerges. It is not taught directly. (b) Evidence supporting the hypothesis (i) First language acquisition in children. The input hypothesis is very consistent with what is known about "caretaker speech", the modifications that parents and others make when talking to young children. The most interesting and perhaps the most important characteristic of caretaker speech for us is that it is not a deliberate attempt to teach language. Rather, as Clark and Clark (1977) point out, caretaker speech is modified in order to aid comprehension. Caretakers talk "simpler" in an effort to make themselves understood by the child. A second characteristic of interest to us here is the finding that caretaker speech, while it is syntactically simpler than adult-adult speech, is "roughly-tuned" to the child's current level of linguistic competence, not "finely-tuned". In other words, caretaker speech is not precisely adjusted to the level of each child, but tends to get more complex as the child progresses. Very good evidence for rough-tuning comes from the research of Cross (1977) and Newport, Gleitman, and Gleitman (1977), who report that correlations between input complexity and measures of the child's linguistic maturity, while positive and often significant, are not usually very large. An interpretation of this finding is that caretakers are not taking aim exactly at i + 1. The input they provide for children includes i + 1, but also includes many structures that have already been acquired, plus some that have not (i + 2, i + 3, etc.) and that the child may not be ready for yet. In other words, caretakers do not provide a grammatically based syllabus! (For a more complete review of rough-tuning, see Krashen 1980, 1981.) ------------------------译文 输入假说的第三部分提出，输入内容必须包含i+1，才对语言习得有用，但可以不仅包含i+1。如果习得者理解输入内容，并且有足够的输入，就能够自动提供i+1。换句话说，如果语言交际是成功的，i+1就有了。我们后面会谈到，最佳的输入甚至都不应该有意识地尝试去提供什么i+1。我们常见的课程设计会有意识地尝试覆盖i+1。会有“今日结构”，通常师生都感觉到课堂的目的是教学并练习具体的语言项目或结构 。 这样，输入假说的第3部分就是： （3）如果交际活动获得成功，输入内容得到理解，并有足够的量，那么i+1就得到自动供给。 输入假说的最后一部分认为口语的流利度是不可能直接“教”给学生的。相反，这种流利度是在语言实践过程中逐渐自行“出现”的。根据这种观点，口语教学最好的办法，也许也是唯一的办法，就是提供可理解输入。当习得者感觉到“就绪”后，早期语言就会出现。然而，不同的人“就绪”状态到来或早或晚。此外，早期语言通常语法上都不太准确。语法准确度会随着时间推移逐步形成，在此过程中习得者听到更多输入，并加以理解。这样，输入假说的第四部分就是： （4）输出能力自行出现。并非直接能教会。 （b）支持输入假说的证据 （i）儿童第一语言习得。输入假说与目前所知的“带孩子语言”相一致，这种语言是父母和他人对年幼的孩子说话时所做的语言调整。带孩子语言最有趣、也许也是最重要的特点是，这种语言不是有意用来教语言的。相反，正如克拉克和卡拉克（1977）所指出的那样，带孩子语言之所以要调整，是为了孩子理解。带孩子的人把语言“简化”，是为了孩子能够理解他们所说的话。 这里我们感兴趣的第二个特点是，带孩子语言尽管和成人语言相比句法上简单些，对孩子某一时刻的语言能力来说仍然是“粗略调整”的，而非“精细调整”过。换句话说，带孩子语言并不需要精确地根据每个孩子的水平加以调整，并倾向于随着孩子的成长而变得更加复杂。有很好的证据支持“粗略调整”论，是克洛斯（1977）和纽波特，格雷曼与格雷曼（1977）所做的研究，他们提出输入复杂程度和儿童的语言成熟度的正相关虽然有时很显著，但通常并不大。对这一发现的一种解读是，带孩子的人并不精确地瞄准什么i+1。他们所提供给儿童的输入包含着i+1，但也包含着许多已经习得的和未习得的（如i+2，i+3，等等），而孩子对此可能并未“就绪”。换句话说，带孩子的人提供的并不是基于语法的课程！ Scan QR Code via WeChat to follow Official Account