英语教学法原著选读21：二语习得输入假说E

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”，这是对我最高的鼓励和奖赏！

为方便朋友们理解、掌握，把重点字词加了红色加粗字体，并把长难句的关键点多加了两个空格，容易看清。

在文章最开始设置了问题，并在文末（译文之后）提供参考答案。 也欢迎朋友们添加我个人微信wuzeming，或向您的朋友推荐，随时就更好的做法进行探讨，提出您的宝贵意见和建议。

------------------------



------------------------

Question: Why do some L2 acquirers substitute L1 rules for L2 i+1 according to the input hypothesis?

-----------------------

(iii) Evidence from second language acquisition: the silent period and L1 influence. The input hypothesis is also consistent with other findings and hypotheses in second language acquisition. One of these can be termed the "silent period", a phenomenon that is most noticeable in child second language acquisition.

It has often been noted that children acquiring a second language in a natural, informal linguistic environment may say very little for several months following their first exposure to the second language. What output there is consists usually of memorized language, whole sentences learned as if they were one word. Hatch (1972), for example, reported that Paul, a five-year-old Chinese speaker acquiring English as a second language, did not really use "creative" language for his first few months in the United States. His only output was memorized sentences, such as

Get out of here. It's time to eat and drink.

He had clearly learned these as whole utterances without a real understanding of their components (e.g. he probably would not understand the word "out" or "time" if it were used in another sentence). Such memorized sentences were probably very useful for Paul, both in the classroom and playground. When "real" language did start to emerge, it looked very much like first language development, with short, simple sentences such as

This kite. Ball no.

The explanation of the silent period in terms of the input hypothesis is straight-forward--the child is building up competence in the second language via listening, by understanding the language around him. In accordance with the input hypothesis, speaking ability emerges on its own after enough competence has been developed by listening and understanding. We should note that case histories dealing with children acquiring second languages (see also Hakuta, 1974; Ervin-Tripp, 1974) agree that several months may elapse until they start talking, and that the speech that emerges is not error-free. This finding has important pedagogical considerations, as we shall see in Chapter III.

Adults, and children in formal language classes, are usually not allowed a silent period. They are often asked to produce very early in a second language, before they have acquired enough syntactic competence to express their ideas. According to a hypothesis first proposed by Newmark (1966), performers who are asked to produce before they are "ready" will fall back on first language rules, that is, they will use syntactic rules of their first language while speaking the second language.

Stated more formally, an acquirer will substitute some L1 rule for i + 1, a rule of the second language, if the acquirer needs i + 1 to express himself but has not yet acquired it. The L1 rule used may be quite similar to the L2 i + 1, but may also differ in certain ways. When the L1 and L2 rules are different, the resulting error is referred to often as "interference". But according to Newmark, it is not interference at all; it is not the result of the L1 interfering with second language performance, but the result of ignorance--the lack of acquisition of an L2 rule that is needed in performance.

------------------------

（iii）二语习得的证据：沉默期和一语影响。输入假说与二语习得的其他发现与假说也是相一致的。其中一种发现可以称为“沉默期”，是在儿童二语习得中最容易发现的一种现象。

经常有人指出，在自然的、非正式的语言环境中习得第二语言的儿童，在最初接触到第二语言后，可能几个月都说不了多少这种语言。能说出来的通常是记住的语言，是当成一个词来学习的整句。例如，哈奇（1972）报告说，一个学英语的五岁中国孩子“保罗”在他刚到美国的前几个月实际上并不使用什么“创造性”语言。他唯独的输出是好记的句子，比如“Get out of here. It’s time to eat and drink.”

他显然是把这些说法整个记住了，对句子的成分并没有真正理解（例如，要是“out”、“time”用在别的句子里，他可能并不理解）。这种熟记的句子对保罗来说可能很管用，不管是教室里还是操场上。当“真正的”语言出现的时候，看起来就很像第一语言的发展过程，会有简短的、简单的句子，如“This kite. Ball no.”

输入假说对这种沉默期的解释很直接——孩子正通过听力、理解周围的语言形成能力。与输入假说相一致，在通过听力和理解形成了足够的能力之后，口语能力就会自然形成。我们要注意到，研究儿童二语习得的个案历史一致表明，儿童要过几个月才开始讲话，而且所讲的话也做不到准确无误。这一发现对教学大有裨益，我们在第三章中会看到。

成人和儿童在正式的语言课堂里通常是没有机会过什么沉默期的。他们通常被要求很早就用第二语言输出，这时他们还没有形成足够的句法能力来表达自己的想法。根据纽马克（1966）首先提出的假说，被要求在“就绪”之前就输出的表现者会求助于第一语言的语法，即他们会在讲第二语言的时候使用母语的句法规则。

更正式地说，习得者会用一语规则替换i+1，如果他需要用来表达自己的i+1还未能习得的话。所使用的一语规则可能与二语i+1相似，但也可能在一些方面有所不同。一语、二语规则不同时，所产生的错误就称为“干预”。而纽马克则认为，这根本就不是什么干预；这不是一语干涉二语表现，而是缺乏能力的结果——缺乏对所需的第二语言规则的习得。

------------------------

Suggested Answer: Because they have not acquired the L2 i+1 needed for their output.