二语习得过程中的中介语对话偏误分析
|
摘要
出偏误是语言学习中的一种普遍现象，任何语言学习者都无法回避。但如何看待与处理偏误各家说法不尽相同。研究者提出了多种有关偏误的理论。本文就“对比分析(Contrastive Analysis)”、“偏误分析(Error Analysis)”、“中介语理论(Interlanguage Theory)”三种偏误理论的偏误观、偏误分析方法及其研究成果进行了探讨。纵观对比分析理论、偏误分析理论和中介语理论的偏误观，不难发现，对比分析和偏误分析的研究对象都是偏误，它们之间的区别主要在于对比分析理论对偏误的研究着眼于母语(native language)和目标语(target
language)语言系统之间的相似性与差异性，而偏误分析理论对偏误的研究则着重于对偏误的类型判断、产生的原因及如何处理各种偏误进行研究和评价。然而，以往所研究的语料多来自语言学习者的作文等书面材料，而忽视口语中出现的偏误。中介语理论则把口头偏误和书面偏误均纳入研究范畴，对学习者的语言进行全面的、纵向的、动态的描述，关注学习者语言发展的整个过程。与对比分析理论和偏误分析理论相比较，中介语理论对偏误的态度则更加积极，它认为偏误贯穿着语言习得的整个过程，是语言习得过程中的固有特征。
第二语言习得者利用中介语进行的对话对外语学习的促进作用已得到许多研究者的肯定，但是，对话中的偏误究竟会对说者和听者产生什么样的影响?学习者中介语对话中常见的偏误是否有规律可循?处于中介语发展不同阶段的学生的中介语对话的偏误有何特征?如何进行偏误纠正?偏误纠正对语言习得和外语教学有何启示?教师该怎样引导处于不同阶段的学生的中介语对话，使其更好地促进外语学习呢?
国内已有学者对这些问题进行了研究，如范烨(2002)的“中介语对话的研究报告”。此文篇幅不长，调查了一组大学生英语中介语对话中出现的偏误，对其词汇偏误进行了分析，但不够深入，没有详细分析语法、语音等偏误，没有就初级与较高水平学习者的偏误的不同特征进行分析。虽提出了一个教的模式和一个学的模式，但没有提出更有效的分析与纠正偏误的教学对策。而这一点，正是本文的写作动机。
本文分析研究了90名处于英语中介语发展的三个不同阶段的中国学生的中介语对话以及相关问卷调查的反馈。利用Selinker(1972)提出的中介语构成的五个心理过程的理论，就三组共45对学习者中介语对话中的偏误进行了分类分析，结果发现，三组英语水平不同的学习者的中介语具有各自不同的特点：
1.三组学习者中介语对话中的偏误都部分地受到其母语迁移的
影响，但水平较低的A组“母语迁移”偏误更多些。
2.除在母语迁移上的差异外，中介语对话偏误还表现在:对目
标语规则的过度概括、训练迁移、交际策略以及其它常见错误。分析
交际策略所引起的偏误，我们发现C组的表现更明显。在以上五类
偏误中，有些是由学生知识系统的缺陷引起的，而有些则归咎于表达
系统的障碍。
3.通过分析中介语对话中的偏误对三组听者、说者的影响，可
见误导英语水平较高的B组和C组听者的可能性并不是很大，但易
误导处于中介语发展初级阶段的A组听者。无论A组、B组还是C
组，如果说者经常重复这类错误而得不到指导，那么其英语知识系统
或表达系统将受到损害。尤其是A组，他们的有些偏误是由于不知
道或不熟悉规则限制而犯的偏误，必须及时纠正或强化。
4.从中介语对话偏误分析可见，二语习得的过程呈“U”型发展，
它不是随意的，而是有规律的。通过分析C组的偏误，可见中介语
的“僵化”现象。这说明，第二语言学习者在心理上有高原期，在语
言水平上有高峰期。
5.根据三组学习者中介语对话的偏误类型和特点，我们发现这
三组学习者分别处于中介语发展的三个不同阶段:A组处于偏误随机
产生阶段;B组处于偏误自然产生阶段;C组处于偏误系统产生阶段。
三个阶段各有特征。
这些发现进一步证实:偏误是语言学习者的语言特征之一，二语
习得者中介语的发展是有规律可循的。虽然在二语习得的过程中，学
习者会经历同样的发展模式，但处于不同阶段、不同程度的学习者的
偏误类型不同，中介语特点就有所不同。这是由于语言习得过程中影
响中介语的因素很多，在不同情况下，学习者的语言应用能力会表现
出很大的差异。中介语发展是二语习得过程中的必然趋势。在该过程
中，习得者头脑中所形成的关于第二语言的中介语规则都是过渡性
的，只要有适时的、恰当的输入，这些过渡性的规则就会向目标语方
向发展。
本文的结论是:分析与纠正中介语对话中的偏误是一个复杂的过
程。准确恰当地分析纠正这些偏误，对学习者的学习过程起着极为重
要的作用。教师要认真对待偏误，正确分析并给予纠正，切不可草率
应付。应在掌握大量相关理论和从事大量教学实践的基础上，将偏误
分析与纠错灵活、有机地结合起来。只有对二语习得者的中介语对话
加以引导，它才能最大限度地推动外语学习的进程。要使中介语对话
充分发挥其功效，教师必须针对学生的弱点，开展系统性的训练来完
善学生的知识系统和表达系统。研究表明，“合适”的外语教学有助
于第二语言学习者中介
Making errors is a universal phenomenon in language learning, and no language learner can avoid it. But linguists hold different views on how to treat learner errors. Researchers have put forward many kinds of theories about errors. This thesis first tries to discuss three important error theories: Contrastive Analysis (CA), Error Analysis (EA) and Intel-language Hypothesis (IH) from the aspects of error viewpoints, methods of error analysis and their respective research achievements. By analyzing the three theories, we can see that the research objects of both CA and EA are errors, the main difference between them is that CA is motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between particular native languages and target languages, while EA pays attention to the study of the nature of errors, recognizing the types of errors, the causes for making errors and researching and evaluating the gravity of the effect of errors on communication. However, both of their language
materials for research mainly come from some written materials, such as students' compositions, but ignoring some errors made in their spoken language. In contrast, the Interlanguage theory puts all the errors , including oral errors into its research domain, trying to provide a full, dynamic and vertical description of learners' language, noticing the whole process of learners' language development. Compared with CA and EA, the interlanguage theory takes a more positive attitude towards errors, firmly believing that errors will be made throughout the whole process of language acquisition, constituting a particular characteristic of the process of language acquisition.
Although the advantages of promoting second language learning of interlanguage talk used by second language learners have been confirmed by many researchers, there are still many questions for us to probe into. What on earth do the errors in interlanguage talk affect the speakers and listeners? Whether are the common errors in students' interlanguage talk rule-governed or not? What characteristics are there in the interlanguage talk of the students of English at different stages of interlanguage development? How should the foreign language teachers analyze and correct the errors made by the students with different target language levels? How can the teachers of English instruct the students at different stages of interlanguage development to have interlanguage talk to
performance system, especially for Group A, whose errors were probably due to ignorance or unfamiliarity of rule restrictions and must be corrected or consolidated in time.
4. The findings of the experiment on interlanguage talk also showed that the process of L2 acquisition develops in the style of "U". Interlanguage fossilization existed in the errors made by Group C, which shows that L2 learners have to experience a plateau in terms of psychology, and a climax in terms of language proficiency.
5. Based on the characteristics of errors, we found that the three groups belong to three different stages of interlanguage development: Group A was at the random error stage; Group B belonged to the emergent stage; and Group C belonged to the systematic stage. The three stages have their respective characteristics of interlanguage.
These discoveries can further prove that L2 acquirers' interlanguage errors are rule-governed. And, although students can experience the same patterns and stages in the process of L2 acquisition, there are different kinds of errors at different stages and their interlanguage has different characteristics. This is because there are many factors affecting interlanguage in the process of L2 acquisition. In different situations, students' language performance shows a lot of differences. Interlanguage development is an integral sector of L2 acquisition. In this process, the learners' interlanguage rules about the L2 are transitional, which will approximate to the target language if learners are given adequate timely and suitable input.
This t
language)语言系统之间的相似性与差异性，而偏误分析理论对偏误的研究则着重于对偏误的类型判断、产生的原因及如何处理各种偏误进行研究和评价。然而，以往所研究的语料多来自语言学习者的作文等书面材料，而忽视口语中出现的偏误。中介语理论则把口头偏误和书面偏误均纳入研究范畴，对学习者的语言进行全面的、纵向的、动态的描述，关注学习者语言发展的整个过程。与对比分析理论和偏误分析理论相比较，中介语理论对偏误的态度则更加积极，它认为偏误贯穿着语言习得的整个过程，是语言习得过程中的固有特征。
第二语言习得者利用中介语进行的对话对外语学习的促进作用已得到许多研究者的肯定，但是，对话中的偏误究竟会对说者和听者产生什么样的影响?学习者中介语对话中常见的偏误是否有规律可循?处于中介语发展不同阶段的学生的中介语对话的偏误有何特征?如何进行偏误纠正?偏误纠正对语言习得和外语教学有何启示?教师该怎样引导处于不同阶段的学生的中介语对话，使其更好地促进外语学习呢?
国内已有学者对这些问题进行了研究，如范烨(2002)的“中介语对话的研究报告”。此文篇幅不长，调查了一组大学生英语中介语对话中出现的偏误，对其词汇偏误进行了分析，但不够深入，没有详细分析语法、语音等偏误，没有就初级与较高水平学习者的偏误的不同特征进行分析。虽提出了一个教的模式和一个学的模式，但没有提出更有效的分析与纠正偏误的教学对策。而这一点，正是本文的写作动机。
本文分析研究了90名处于英语中介语发展的三个不同阶段的中国学生的中介语对话以及相关问卷调查的反馈。利用Selinker(1972)提出的中介语构成的五个心理过程的理论，就三组共45对学习者中介语对话中的偏误进行了分类分析，结果发现，三组英语水平不同的学习者的中介语具有各自不同的特点：
1.三组学习者中介语对话中的偏误都部分地受到其母语迁移的
影响，但水平较低的A组“母语迁移”偏误更多些。
2.除在母语迁移上的差异外，中介语对话偏误还表现在:对目
标语规则的过度概括、训练迁移、交际策略以及其它常见错误。分析
交际策略所引起的偏误，我们发现C组的表现更明显。在以上五类
偏误中，有些是由学生知识系统的缺陷引起的，而有些则归咎于表达
系统的障碍。
3.通过分析中介语对话中的偏误对三组听者、说者的影响，可
见误导英语水平较高的B组和C组听者的可能性并不是很大，但易
误导处于中介语发展初级阶段的A组听者。无论A组、B组还是C
组，如果说者经常重复这类错误而得不到指导，那么其英语知识系统
或表达系统将受到损害。尤其是A组，他们的有些偏误是由于不知
道或不熟悉规则限制而犯的偏误，必须及时纠正或强化。
4.从中介语对话偏误分析可见，二语习得的过程呈“U”型发展，
它不是随意的，而是有规律的。通过分析C组的偏误，可见中介语
的“僵化”现象。这说明，第二语言学习者在心理上有高原期，在语
言水平上有高峰期。
5.根据三组学习者中介语对话的偏误类型和特点，我们发现这
三组学习者分别处于中介语发展的三个不同阶段:A组处于偏误随机
产生阶段;B组处于偏误自然产生阶段;C组处于偏误系统产生阶段。
三个阶段各有特征。
这些发现进一步证实:偏误是语言学习者的语言特征之一，二语
习得者中介语的发展是有规律可循的。虽然在二语习得的过程中，学
习者会经历同样的发展模式，但处于不同阶段、不同程度的学习者的
偏误类型不同，中介语特点就有所不同。这是由于语言习得过程中影
响中介语的因素很多，在不同情况下，学习者的语言应用能力会表现
出很大的差异。中介语发展是二语习得过程中的必然趋势。在该过程
中，习得者头脑中所形成的关于第二语言的中介语规则都是过渡性
的，只要有适时的、恰当的输入，这些过渡性的规则就会向目标语方
向发展。
本文的结论是:分析与纠正中介语对话中的偏误是一个复杂的过
程。准确恰当地分析纠正这些偏误，对学习者的学习过程起着极为重
要的作用。教师要认真对待偏误，正确分析并给予纠正，切不可草率
应付。应在掌握大量相关理论和从事大量教学实践的基础上，将偏误
分析与纠错灵活、有机地结合起来。只有对二语习得者的中介语对话
加以引导，它才能最大限度地推动外语学习的进程。要使中介语对话
充分发挥其功效，教师必须针对学生的弱点，开展系统性的训练来完
善学生的知识系统和表达系统。研究表明，“合适”的外语教学有助
于第二语言学习者中介
Making errors is a universal phenomenon in language learning, and no language learner can avoid it. But linguists hold different views on how to treat learner errors. Researchers have put forward many kinds of theories about errors. This thesis first tries to discuss three important error theories: Contrastive Analysis (CA), Error Analysis (EA) and Intel-language Hypothesis (IH) from the aspects of error viewpoints, methods of error analysis and their respective research achievements. By analyzing the three theories, we can see that the research objects of both CA and EA are errors, the main difference between them is that CA is motivated by the prospect of being able to identify points of similarity and difference between particular native languages and target languages, while EA pays attention to the study of the nature of errors, recognizing the types of errors, the causes for making errors and researching and evaluating the gravity of the effect of errors on communication. However, both of their language
materials for research mainly come from some written materials, such as students' compositions, but ignoring some errors made in their spoken language. In contrast, the Interlanguage theory puts all the errors , including oral errors into its research domain, trying to provide a full, dynamic and vertical description of learners' language, noticing the whole process of learners' language development. Compared with CA and EA, the interlanguage theory takes a more positive attitude towards errors, firmly believing that errors will be made throughout the whole process of language acquisition, constituting a particular characteristic of the process of language acquisition.
Although the advantages of promoting second language learning of interlanguage talk used by second language learners have been confirmed by many researchers, there are still many questions for us to probe into. What on earth do the errors in interlanguage talk affect the speakers and listeners? Whether are the common errors in students' interlanguage talk rule-governed or not? What characteristics are there in the interlanguage talk of the students of English at different stages of interlanguage development? How should the foreign language teachers analyze and correct the errors made by the students with different target language levels? How can the teachers of English instruct the students at different stages of interlanguage development to have interlanguage talk to
performance system, especially for Group A, whose errors were probably due to ignorance or unfamiliarity of rule restrictions and must be corrected or consolidated in time.
4. The findings of the experiment on interlanguage talk also showed that the process of L2 acquisition develops in the style of "U". Interlanguage fossilization existed in the errors made by Group C, which shows that L2 learners have to experience a plateau in terms of psychology, and a climax in terms of language proficiency.
5. Based on the characteristics of errors, we found that the three groups belong to three different stages of interlanguage development: Group A was at the random error stage; Group B belonged to the emergent stage; and Group C belonged to the systematic stage. The three stages have their respective characteristics of interlanguage.
These discoveries can further prove that L2 acquirers' interlanguage errors are rule-governed. And, although students can experience the same patterns and stages in the process of L2 acquisition, there are different kinds of errors at different stages and their interlanguage has different characteristics. This is because there are many factors affecting interlanguage in the process of L2 acquisition. In different situations, students' language performance shows a lot of differences. Interlanguage development is an integral sector of L2 acquisition. In this process, the learners' interlanguage rules about the L2 are transitional, which will approximate to the target language if learners are given adequate timely and suitable input.
This t
引文
1. Allwright, D. Problems in the Study of the Language Teacher's Treatment of Learner Error [A]. In M.Burt & H.Dulay (ed.), New Directions in Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education: On TESOL'75 [C]. Washington, DC: TESOL, 1975.
2. Allwright, D. & K.M. Bailey.Focus on the Language Classroom [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
3. Anthony Woods, Paul Fletcher and Arthur Hughes. Statistics in Language Studies[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2000, P. F. 20.
4. Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd edition) [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1982.
5. Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M]. (3rd edition) Prentice Hall Regents,1994. p.p. 219-229.
6. Chaudon, C. Second Language Classroom: Research of Teaching and Learning [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
7. Corder, S.P. The Significance of Learners'Errors [J], International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967 (5),p.20, p.p. 161-169.
8. Corder, s. 'Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis'. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 1971, p.32
9. Dulay, H. and M, Burt. 'Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition' in M, Burt, H. Dulay, and M.Finoechiaro (eds.) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. [M]. New York: Regents, 1977.
10. Ellis, R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. p. 23,47, 48, 50, 51.
11. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p.351.
12. Gass, S. Integrating Research Areas: a Framework for Second Language Studies [J]. Applied Linguistics,1988(9), p.p. 198-217.
13. Gass, S. & E Varonis. Task Variation and Normative/Nonnative Negotiation of Meaning [A]. Gass, S. & C. Madden. (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1985.
14. George, H. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House,1972.
15. Lado, R. Linguistics Across Culture: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers [M]. Ann Arbor. Michigan:University of Michigan Press, 1957.
16. Larsen-Freeman, Dand Long, M. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research [M].. Longman.P. 97. 262. 272. 278. 280. 307. 316.
17. Lee, W. 'Thoughtson Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching' in J. Alatis (ed.) .Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedaggical Implications [M]. Washington, D.C. Georgetown University,1968, P.180.
18. Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967.
19. Li.X. Effects of Contextual Cues on Inferring and Remembering Meanings of New Words [J]. Applied Linguistics 1989,(10): p.p. 402-13.
20. Long M, L Adams, M McLean & F Castanos. Doing Things with Words: Verbal Interaction in Lockstep and Small Group Classroom Situations [A]. Fanselow J & R Crymes. (eds.) On TESOL'76 [C]. Washington D.C. : TESOL, 1976.
21. Long M & P Porter. Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition [J]. TESOL Quarterly 1985, (19): p.p. 207-28.
22. Nemser, W. Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. International Review of Apphed Linguistics Ⅸ: 23-115.
23. Plann S. Acquiring a Second Language in an Immersion Situation [A]. H Brown et al. (eds.) On TESOL'77 [C]. Washington D.C.. TESOL, 1977.
24. Pica T & C Doughty. Input and Interaction in the Communicative Language Classroom: a Comparison of Teacher-fronted and Group Activities [A]. Gass S & C Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1985.
25. Pical. The Textual Outcomes of Native Speaker-Non-Native Speaker Negotiation: What do They Reveal about Second Language Learning [A]. Kramsch C & S McConnell-Ginet. (eds.) Text and Context:Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study [C]. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Health and Company, 1992.
26. Porter P. How Learners Talk to Each Other. Input and Interaction in Task-Centred Discussions [A].Day R. (ed.) Talking to Leam: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House,1986.
27. Richards J. Error Analysis [M]. London: Longman, 1974.
28. Selinker, L. Interlanguage[J], International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, P. 37.
29. Selinker, L. and J,Lamendella. Two perspectives on Fossilization in Interlanguage Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1978, P.91-143.
30. Selinker, L. Rediscovering Interlanguage [M]. Longman, London, 1992. P. 175.
31. Wardhaugh,R. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4,1970, p.p. 123-30.
32. Widdowson. H. The Significanec of Simplication.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1/1, 1975b.
33. Wrong-Filmore L. Learning a Language from Learners [A]. Kramsch C & S McConnell-Ginet. (eds.) Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language [C]. Lexington, Mass:D.C. Health and Company,1992.
34．蔡金亭，英语过渡语中的动词曲折变化[J]．《外语教学与研究》2002年第3期，第107-114页．
35．常宝儒，汉语语言心理学[M]．《知识出版社》1990，第180页
36．范烨，关于中介语对话的研究报[J]．《外语界》2002年第期，第19-24页．
37．桂诗春，《应用语苦学》[M]．湖南教育出版社1988．
38．黄源深，《综合英语教程》(3)[M]．高等教育出版社，1999年(8)。
39．李大忠，偏误成因的思维心理分析[J]．《语言教学与研究》1999年第2期，第117-118页．
40．李炯英，中介语综观[J]．《国外外语教学》1994年第4期，第7页．
41．牛强，过渡语的石化现象及教学启示[J]．《外语与外语教学》2001年第五期，第28-31页．
42．罗晓杰，孙琳，偏误理论与二语习的得[J]．《外语学刊》2003年第二期，第104页．
43．司联合，过渡语研究中的几个问题[J]．《外语教学》2001年第9期，第42-43页．
44．许余龙，对比语言学概论[M]．《上海外语教育出版社》 1992年第328页
45．袁博平，第二语言习得研究的同顾与展望[J]．《世界汉语教学》1995第4期。
46．张雪梅，中介语研究动向[J]．《外语界》2002年第2期，第14-18页．
47．邹为诚，综合英语教程(3)[M]．《高等教育出版社》1999年．
48．朱智贤，心理学犬词典[M]．《北京师范大学出版社》1989年第185页．
2. Allwright, D. & K.M. Bailey.Focus on the Language Classroom [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
3. Anthony Woods, Paul Fletcher and Arthur Hughes. Statistics in Language Studies[M]. Cambridge University Press, 2000, P. F. 20.
4. Brown, H.D. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (2nd edition) [M]. New Jersey: Prentice Hall,1982.
5. Brown, H. Douglas. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching [M]. (3rd edition) Prentice Hall Regents,1994. p.p. 219-229.
6. Chaudon, C. Second Language Classroom: Research of Teaching and Learning [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
7. Corder, S.P. The Significance of Learners'Errors [J], International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1967 (5),p.20, p.p. 161-169.
8. Corder, s. 'Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis'. International Review of Applied Linguistics. 1971, p.32
9. Dulay, H. and M, Burt. 'Remarks on Creativity in Language Acquisition' in M, Burt, H. Dulay, and M.Finoechiaro (eds.) Viewpoints on English as a Second Language. [M]. New York: Regents, 1977.
10. Ellis, R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. p. 23,47, 48, 50, 51.
11. Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, p.351.
12. Gass, S. Integrating Research Areas: a Framework for Second Language Studies [J]. Applied Linguistics,1988(9), p.p. 198-217.
13. Gass, S. & E Varonis. Task Variation and Normative/Nonnative Negotiation of Meaning [A]. Gass, S. & C. Madden. (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1985.
14. George, H. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House,1972.
15. Lado, R. Linguistics Across Culture: Applied Linguistics for Language Teachers [M]. Ann Arbor. Michigan:University of Michigan Press, 1957.
16. Larsen-Freeman, Dand Long, M. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research [M].. Longman.P. 97. 262. 272. 278. 280. 307. 316.
17. Lee, W. 'Thoughtson Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching' in J. Alatis (ed.) .Contrastive Linguistics and its Pedaggical Implications [M]. Washington, D.C. Georgetown University,1968, P.180.
18. Lenneberg, E. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1967.
19. Li.X. Effects of Contextual Cues on Inferring and Remembering Meanings of New Words [J]. Applied Linguistics 1989,(10): p.p. 402-13.
20. Long M, L Adams, M McLean & F Castanos. Doing Things with Words: Verbal Interaction in Lockstep and Small Group Classroom Situations [A]. Fanselow J & R Crymes. (eds.) On TESOL'76 [C]. Washington D.C. : TESOL, 1976.
21. Long M & P Porter. Group Work, Interlanguage Talk, and Second Language Acquisition [J]. TESOL Quarterly 1985, (19): p.p. 207-28.
22. Nemser, W. Approximative Systems of Foreign Language Learners. International Review of Apphed Linguistics Ⅸ: 23-115.
23. Plann S. Acquiring a Second Language in an Immersion Situation [A]. H Brown et al. (eds.) On TESOL'77 [C]. Washington D.C.. TESOL, 1977.
24. Pica T & C Doughty. Input and Interaction in the Communicative Language Classroom: a Comparison of Teacher-fronted and Group Activities [A]. Gass S & C Madden (eds.) Input in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House, 1985.
25. Pical. The Textual Outcomes of Native Speaker-Non-Native Speaker Negotiation: What do They Reveal about Second Language Learning [A]. Kramsch C & S McConnell-Ginet. (eds.) Text and Context:Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language Study [C]. Lexington, Mass: D. C. Health and Company, 1992.
26. Porter P. How Learners Talk to Each Other. Input and Interaction in Task-Centred Discussions [A].Day R. (ed.) Talking to Leam: Conversation in Second Language Acquisition [C]. Rowley, Mass: Newbury House,1986.
27. Richards J. Error Analysis [M]. London: Longman, 1974.
28. Selinker, L. Interlanguage[J], International Review of Applied Linguistics, 1972, P. 37.
29. Selinker, L. and J,Lamendella. Two perspectives on Fossilization in Interlanguage Learning. Interlanguage Studies Bulletin, 1978, P.91-143.
30. Selinker, L. Rediscovering Interlanguage [M]. Longman, London, 1992. P. 175.
31. Wardhaugh,R. The Contrastive Analysis Hypothesis. TESOL Quarterly 4,1970, p.p. 123-30.
32. Widdowson. H. The Significanec of Simplication.' Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1/1, 1975b.
33. Wrong-Filmore L. Learning a Language from Learners [A]. Kramsch C & S McConnell-Ginet. (eds.) Text and Context: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Language [C]. Lexington, Mass:D.C. Health and Company,1992.
34．蔡金亭，英语过渡语中的动词曲折变化[J]．《外语教学与研究》2002年第3期，第107-114页．
35．常宝儒，汉语语言心理学[M]．《知识出版社》1990，第180页
36．范烨，关于中介语对话的研究报[J]．《外语界》2002年第期，第19-24页．
37．桂诗春，《应用语苦学》[M]．湖南教育出版社1988．
38．黄源深，《综合英语教程》(3)[M]．高等教育出版社，1999年(8)。
39．李大忠，偏误成因的思维心理分析[J]．《语言教学与研究》1999年第2期，第117-118页．
40．李炯英，中介语综观[J]．《国外外语教学》1994年第4期，第7页．
41．牛强，过渡语的石化现象及教学启示[J]．《外语与外语教学》2001年第五期，第28-31页．
42．罗晓杰，孙琳，偏误理论与二语习的得[J]．《外语学刊》2003年第二期，第104页．
43．司联合，过渡语研究中的几个问题[J]．《外语教学》2001年第9期，第42-43页．
44．许余龙，对比语言学概论[M]．《上海外语教育出版社》 1992年第328页
45．袁博平，第二语言习得研究的同顾与展望[J]．《世界汉语教学》1995第4期。
46．张雪梅，中介语研究动向[J]．《外语界》2002年第2期，第14-18页．
47．邹为诚，综合英语教程(3)[M]．《高等教育出版社》1999年．
48．朱智贤，心理学犬词典[M]．《北京师范大学出版社》1989年第185页．