英语教学法原著选读23：二语习得输入假说G
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。
------------------------
------------------------
(v) Applied linguistics research. The input hypothesis is also consistent with the results of what can be called "method comparison" experiments. Several scholars and groups of scholars have attempted to determine directly which teaching methods are best by simple comparison. Groups of students studying second and foreign languages using two different methods are compared, both in long-term and short-term studies. We will have a detailed look at this research in Chapter V, but I will state my own conclusions in advance. My reading of studies comparing the more commonly used methods (audio-lingual as compared to grammar-translation or cognitive-code) is as follows:
(1) "Deductive" methods (rule first, then practice, e.g. grammar-translation and cognitive-code) are slightly more efficient than audio-lingual teaching for adults. The differences are often statistically significant, but are not huge. Students clearly make some progress using any of these approaches.
(2) For adolescents, there is no measurable difference.
I interpret this failure to find large differences in this way: none of the methods compared in these studies provides much in the way of comprehensible input! The input hypothesis predicts, moreover, that an approach that provides substantial quantities of comprehensible input will do much better than any of the older approaches.
There are several newer methods that do this, such as Asher's Total Physical Response Method (Asher, 1966, 1969) and Terrell's Natural Approach (Terrell, 1977). In these methods, class time is devoted to providing comprehensible input, where the focus is on the message and not the form, and students are not expected to produce in the second language until they themselves decide they are "ready". Reports confirming the superiority of such "input methods" have been appearing in the professional literature over the last ten years (e.g. Asher, 1972; Gary, 1975; Postovsky, 1974; more detail is provided in Chapter V). (The focus on comprehensible input is not the only reason for the success of the newer methods, however; see discussion below of affect, and Chapters III and V.)
Since the bulk of this book is intended to deal with implications of second language acquisition theory (Chapters III, IV, and V), this section should really be delayed until later. I cannot resist, however, briefly stating one implication here, since, in my opinion, the implications of the input hypothesis are truly exciting for all of us interested in language acquisition. Most important, the input hypothesis predicts that the classroom may be an excellent place for second language acquisition, at least up to the "intermediate" level. For beginners, the classroom can be much better than the outside world, since the outside usually provides the beginner with very little comprehensible input, especially for older acquirers (Wagner-Gough and Hatch, 1975). In the classroom, we can provide an hour a day of comprehensible input, which is probably much better than the outside can do for the beginner.
------------------------
（V）应用语言学研究。输入假说与可称为“方法比较”的试验的结果也是一致的。多位学者、多个学者小组都试图用简单比较的方法直接确定哪种教学方法是最好的。各组学习二语、外语的学生使用两种不同的方法，进行相互比较，进行了长短期研究。我们将在第五章对此进行详细探讨，但我要在此提前说一说我的结论。我对比较常用方法（听说法，相对于语法翻译法或认知信号法）的研究的解读如下：
（1）对成人来说，“演绎性”方法（规则先来，然后练习，比如语法翻译法和认知信号法）比听说教学法稍微有效些。经常是差异有统计学意义，但并不大。学生使用任何一种方法都能取得明显进步。
（2）对青少年来说，没有可测量的区别。
我对找不出巨大差异的这种情况是这么解读的：研究中所使用的这些方法没有哪一种能提供大量的可理解输入！输入假说还预测，能够提供大量可理解输入的方法会比以上较传统方法中的任何一种都要好得多。
有好几种新方法能够做到这一点，比如阿舍的全身反应法，特雷尔的自然教学法等。这些方法把课堂时间用于提供可理解输入，重点关注内容而非形式，不要求学生以第二语言输出，直到他们觉得已“准备就绪”。十年来对此类“输入教学法”的优越性加以肯定的报告已经开始出现。（然而，对可理解输入的关注并不仅仅是新方法成功的唯一原因；可以看看接下来有关情感过滤的部分，以及第三章、第五章。）
因本书大部分意在探讨二语习得理论的意义（第三、四、五章），这一部分实际上应该要到后面才放上来。然而我却忍不住要在这里先说一个：在我看来，输入假说的意义对于我们这些对语言习得感兴趣的人来说实在是令人振奋的。最重要的是，输入假说预测，教室也可以成为绝佳的二语习得场所，至少也可以达到“中等”水平。对初学者来说，教室可能比外部世界还要好上许多，因为外部世界通常提供给初学者的可理解输入实在不多，对年长的习得者来说尤其如此。在教室里，我们可以提供每天一小时的可理解输入，这要比外部世界能为初学者所做的多得多。