大学英语课堂元语言的实证研究

论文摘要

“元语言”这一概念20世纪30年代由波兰逻辑学家Alfred Tarski提出时,指谈论语言自身的语言,从而与谈论客观事物的“对象语言”进行区分。长期以来,元语言研究局限于哲学领域,语言学界,尤其是应用语言学界和外语教学界,未对此引起足够重视。直到李葆嘉（2002）提出哲学的元语言和语言学的元语言两大分野,这一区分推动了语言学的元语言（linguistic metalanguage）的研究。本研究关注作为元语言使用最普遍的场所——语言课堂,运用语言及语言教学的相关理论,以大学英语课堂教学语言作为研究对象,归纳其作为元语言一种的形式和特点,揭示其描写模式和解释模式,以此验证课堂语言研究作为考察语言课堂教学的一种途径。本文在国内外元语言、元语言学及课堂语言研究成果的基础上,从元语言的一般概念出发,讨论了大学英语课堂元语言的定义和研究范围,将其规定为描述和解释语言的语言,自然语言形式的人工语言和兼顾知识和能力的语言三种概念。在此定位下,讨论了课堂语言相关因素,并结合Krashen的输入-输出理论,建构了检验大学英语课堂元语言的标准。以标准为尺度,分析了教学诸因素与课堂教学语言的关系,并探讨了语言输入和输出的元语言特征,强调教师的语言输入和学生的语言输出应具互动性。本文作者针对研究的实践性,进行了大学英语课堂元语言使用情况的实证调查,采用课堂观察、问卷调查和访谈的方式采集了相关数据,分析了其元语言的现实状况,并运用实证研究的成果,讨论了教学问题及对策。本研究得出的结论有两个:一是分析了大学英语课堂教学语言的元语言性质,归纳了其元语言的形式及内容（表达方式、组织形式、句型特征、问句特点和互动模式等）,从中观察和分析了现阶段英语课堂教学的问题（如教师教学观的片面性导致元语言的固化从而影响学生的学习积极性等）;二是指出了对元语言研究及英语教学实践的启示作用:研究者和教育工作者应把握元语言研究领域、研究对象、研究方法及其发展趋势;应理解元语言理论对教学实践的指导作用及教学实践对元语言理论的参考价值;应强调教师的作用和以教学目的为导向的教学观的建立,发展综合化教学模式和多样化教学技巧,培养学生及教师自身的元语言能力等。本文作者认为,课堂元语言不仅是元语言研究的重要课题,也是考察课堂教学的有效途径,在这一领域的深入研究将有助于我国元语言理论建构及外语教学理论与实践的发展。

论文目录

• 摘要
• Abstract
• Introduction
• 0.1 Motivation of the Study
• 0.2 Research on Previous Studies
• 0.3 Significance of the Study
• 0.4 Objective of the Study
• 0.5 Overall Structure of the Paper
• Chapter 1 Metalanguage﹠Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 1.1 Metalanguage in General
• 1.1.1 Definition of Metalanguage
• 1.1.2 Classification and Scope of Metalanguage
• 1.2 Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 1.2.1 The Debating of “Teach English, not teach about English”
• 1.2.2 Definition and Scope of Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 1.2.3 Distinction from Some Concepts
• 1.3 Nature of Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 1.3.1 Metalanguage as Descriptive and Interpretive Language
• 1.3.2 Metalanguage as Artificial Language in the Form of Natural Language
• 1.3.3 Metalanguage as Language Including Metalinguistic Knowledge and Metalinguistic Competence
• 1.4 Summary
• Chapter 2 Criterion on Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 2.1 Factors Concerned about Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• 2.1.1 Syllabus and Teaching Aims
• 2.1.2 Teaching Materials and Metalanguage
• 2.1.3 Teaching Models and Metalanguage
• 2.1.4 Qualities and Abilities of Teachers
• 2.1.5 Linguistic and Cognitive Levels of Students
• 2.2 Input-Output Hypothesis and Metalanguage
• 2.3 Summary
• Chapter 3 Research Design
• 3.1 Research Subjects
• 3.2 Research Methods
• 3.2.1 Design of Classroom Observation
• 3.2.2 Design of the Questionnaire
• 3.2.3 Design of the Interview
• 3.3 Summary
• Chapter 4 Data Collection and Result Analysis
• 4.1 Data Collection
• 4.1.1 Investigation of the Teachers
• 4.1.2 Recording and Observation in the Classrooms
• 4.1.3 Tally Sheet and Copies of Teaching Contents
• 4.1.4 Questionnaires for the Teachers
• 4.1.5 Interviews with the Teachers
• 4.2 Result Analysis
• 4.2.1 Result Analysis on Classroom Observation
• 4.2.2 Result Analysis on Questionnaire
• 4.2.3 Result Analysis on Interviews
• 4.3 Discussion
• Chapter 5 Implications
• 5.1 Implications on the Research of Metalanguage
• 5.2 Implications on the Relationship Between Metalinguistic Theory and Teaching Practice
• 5.3 Implications on Teaching Practice
• 5.3.1 Teachers’Role and Their Views
• 5.3.2 Teaching Models and Techniques
• 5.3.3 Metalinguistic Competence and Awareness
• 5.4 Summary
• Conclusion
• Notes
• References
• Acknowledgements
• Appendix A: Observation Tally Sheet of Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• Appendix B: Questionnaire of Metalanguage in College English Classroom
• Appendix C: Outline of the Interview
• Appendix D: General Information about the Investigated Universities
• Informative Chinese Abstract
• Résuméand Publications since Entering the Program