Chapter One Introduction
随着经济全球化和中国更深入地参与国际事务，学习英语作为第二语言的凶猛的大潮中已成为当务之急，在中国流行。第二语言习得的问题越来越多的受到人们的重视。在本文中，笔者着重在句法层面的负迁移。本章介绍了探讨背景，意义的探讨，并组织论文。With the ferocious tide of globalization and China's deeper involvement ininternational affairs，英语论文范文，learning English as a second language has become imperative andprevalent in China. More and more attention has been paid to issues concerning secondlanguage acquisition. In this thesis, the author focuses on negative transfer at syntacticlevel. The research background, significance of the study and organization of the thesis arepresented in this chapter.
1.1 Research Background
英语教师有可能经常被学生的“外国口音”他们犯下的错误，因为他们的母语的干扰或各类留下深刻的印象。“外国口音”可能是最明确和最可靠的线索表明学生的语言迁移。然而，除了音韵转移，转移体现在各个层面，如词汇，语法，语篇，形态，和语用。语言传递的母语（NL）的影响，英语论文范文，但是在第二语言习得探讨的过程中，经历了一个多岩石的历史。接受或拒绝的语言转移密切相关，第二语言习得的意见。在20世纪50年代，行为主义盛行的时候，转移被视为习惯形成的干扰。在20世纪60年代，当行为主义观点所取代乔姆斯基的普遍语法，相信，每个人都被赋予了一种与生俱来的设备获取语言。语言传递的重要性在下降，学习者的错误被认为是“创造性的建设过程中转移的结果，而不是证据。在20世纪70年代，一个更加平衡的观点占了上风，转移的影响已得到确认，转让被视为与各种因素。在过去的几年中，语言迁移已越来越界面eJed作为一个认知过程。The EFL teachers might have been frequently impressed by students' “foreign accent"or all types of errors they commit because of the interference of their native language. The“foreign accent" may be the most explicit and reliable clue to indicate students' languagetransfer. However, besides phonological transfer, transfer manifests itself at various levels,such as lexicology, syntax, discourse, morphology, and pragmatics.The role of the native language (NL) in language transfer, however, has experienced arocky history in the course of second language acquisition research. The acceptance orrejection of language transfer is closely associated with the views on second languageacquisition. In the 1950s when behaviourism prevailed, transfer was considered as theinterference of habit formation. In the 1960s when the behaviourist view was replaced byChomsky's Universal Grammar, believing that everyone was endowed with an innatedevice to acquire languages. The importance of language transfer was in decline andlearner's errors were regarded as evidence of “the creative construction process” ratherthan the result of transfer. In the 1970s，a more balanced perspective prevailed that the roleof transfer was acknowledged and transfer was deemed to interact with various factors. Inthe past few years, language transfer has been increasingly interfa-eJed as a cognitiveprocess.
As an important area in SLA, explorations of language transfer have witnessed upsand downs with the shift of the theoretical paradigm. And its significance in secondlanguage acquisition has been reassessed for several times within the past few decades.From the 1950s to 1960s，when behaviourist view was prevailing with Lado (1957) as oneof the representatives, language transfer was regarded as interference. It was thought thatthe difference between LI and L2 was the major impediment to learn a second language.Therefore, Contrastive Analysis (CA) was adopted to predict when LI interference wouldhappen.In the 1970s, empirical studies were conducted to justify the contrastive analysishypothesis (CAH). It turned out that some errors predicted by CAH did not occur and notall errors were caused by LI interference (Dulay and Burt，1974). Therefore, CA lostground to error analysis (EA), with Corder (1981) as one of representatives, proving thaterrors did not necessarily happen when L2 differed from LI to a certain degree. With&t
|
