湖南師范大學(xué)2014年碩士研究生入學(xué)考試(971英語教學(xué)論)試題（精編版）

1、2014年碩士生入學(xué)考試初試湖南師范大學(xué)自命題科目試題冊業(yè)第課代碼；971 業(yè)務(wù)津名稱:英語教學(xué)論溝分：15 考試時斗3小時考小滾wh 1.答策仍須寫在谷通柬上.寫在其它新茶無2. 答也時必須使川黑色病水若作若，用只他輪缶題小給分.不得使用涂改池l explain briefly the following temis; (30)1. intcgnijivc inotivnfion2. test rclubijity3. rchaviorim4. intake in sla5- deductive gnmimar leaching6 < omptchensibk output hypot

2、hesish. amwrr the following question briellv: (60)7. among lhe problems existing in current english lmuage leaching in china, what do you think is the one that needs to be settled down mofl urgently? explain your reasons.8. how to cultivate a rtixknrs imercuhural awarenew?9. compared with vadiliooal

3、 foreign language teaching, what arc the merits and demerits of ib lt?10. what arc die differences hrtwocn product-oncmed language teaching and process>rici)ted language teaching?iii. task% completion (60)j. keid (hit und then aiisncr lhe following quesltoas: (20)0 whm dow the author mean by stat

4、ing that f he relationship bdween reading and knowledge of vocabolary is well documented and reciprocail."?2) whut implication can you gd about reading teaching from this short pawige?parage onethe rebtionship between reading ami 或心製 of rocabulary is wcll-docunicnled and reciprocal it is now we

5、ll understood oui the be (some woukl arue lhe only) way to acquire the extensive vouibulary required for reading widely in a grand language is reading itself. and h is equally well understood that a prerequisite for such reading is an extetvsive vouhulary u classic chickrn and egg situation. edward

6、fry (1981) has claimed that readers who cncuuntcr more ilian one unknown word in iwenty in a text will be reading at what he calls * frustration level” and will thus be unlikely to continue reading a sobering (liought for icochers of adult second language readen who want to read adult material but o

7、ften lack the vocabulary required to do so successfully. iluckin,笫頃.捋頃fuynes. and coady (1993) provide good sunimiiry of research for second language readers, addressing moil of the major laues. marling with airtoavitic word recognition. necessary buf not sufficient condition (staxuiuck 199!) for sm

8、essful rcdift| cwnprehemion. for mcrnd language rcam丄 the inues arc obviously more complex such rraden are often slower and x automatic m recoin i rin£ words in the target language thm first language radm arc (fawu a sedalov% itz. 1983). in wtwequent studies, scgalouit?, srgalcwitz. lod wood (1

9、998) hitve shown that ncten&d experience tn raiding a second isncuic 心 positive cffccti on word rvcognftion (or nduft lubjcvt. and gtvx wnde woolley, ami shmey (1993) have cxxcd this issue wkh younger lenmen learning to read id h%o languages. both studies rficu tfw the dcvelepncxil of ha and aev

10、urate wwd-rwornitioc rtflh is a complex pnxms for seumd hmguago readen th. iwond a wide nu|ge vf krxmlodgc and skilli.many text! for the lead岫 of second language rend皿 pmtno忙 gwessmg tium context as a ”回3 means of decoding unknown worth, but research svutnto that ihi、stnitcgy is cvcmifcd and often i

11、 rads tu tmwidentifkations (benmmiman a lutcr. i9m> simihriy, feseirch demonstrates that second hnuage readers, whether guosing or 皿 mqueady diismkntify war山(bcrnlwrdt, 199! thmf although reading remains the bert mcani of acqutriof a larger vocabulary, cm rmui bo taken not to immefic readers m te

12、xts that an lexically beyond than, which dexs :n fad reduce reading to a kind of guessing game. ihc reciprocal relationship mentioned earlier between reading and vocabulary must in practice, be handled with care: second itn/uage readers sliouid be lexically prepared for any torts aligned and the lex

13、u shouki meet, or be taught in wh b wny m to meet, knswi i i staimiard for compfrhwsibiliry vocabotary cwmot be foncfcd nadiag. and second lanrui«e readers cannot read texu that are lexical)y beyoad their profkicacy.z suppott you art rvibr to teach primary kbol 9f«(>ent> a story aame

14、d 偵tty wants zx七 oecick hlch words you mikht wsnt to idtroduee io ffudeatt before they read the tevt aad dcsirb pre rw(lln|( work tn <in fhtt. traching mrlhod you arr to apply? whih to jutcifkatioa for this <1。圾？ (20)kitty wanu a mthta hox to too >hort.this boi h too small.tlite box »

15、too big. thh boi to loo uil nib hoi to too wide. flih bo h perfkt ibftide.3. rrad p心瞰 dr。d then uniircr i be loltowinr qucsliods: (20)1) whai is <?ovitnistive analysis? wlur is the mibors attitude towards contrastive analysis?2) what does the author mem by r buroen up dtti led process rather than

16、 a top-downth«ybad one1*?為according to this pwrae, how docs sla fesearcb vics about l2 learner's interiankuage and l!?4) summarize the main idea of this pasuge within 7 words. panage twothe mainspring lhal drove sijk rtjrarch in the 1960s was the independent grammars assumption as applied i

17、o children's language by people *h as brown (1973) and mcneill (1966): children should not be trckcd as mini-adults but m diildren. the chikn language constitutes an independent syttetn of ite own mthcr than being a defective version of the adult system. hraine'g cnicmi work with twaword sca

18、tenccb sei tire tieixl (brome, 1963). children勺 utterances like more high were not deformed versions of adnh sentences twt reflected the unique pivot open organiustion of early child gnminuir; lo make u two-oed uncrance. combine a pivot word like more with a comcm word like high, yieldinr more higti

19、, a to be kited up. children's sentences are not pum axirmpts al adult sentences but proper cntmcci nocorrfin& s the child's own rales.trtkm into sla rcsmvh, the iimkpmdail gnin)rears assumption became known ru the mjnterlm>guagc" hypothesis: “the existence of separate linguistic

20、 system (sclinkcr, 1972). the lcumcr*$ language system is not a defective vwion wf the native speaker's but a developing system in hs own right. this concept served (o libcime sla incwch from the dead hand of slniclural lifiguislics and ccmrastivc analysis by starting from the learner nithcr tha

21、n a preset apparatus. the main focus became the detailed rnialysk of teimen' speech, in principle independently of the language of native speakers you nn longer had to compare tlie total syntax and phonology of the two languages before you tackled l2 fcaming as it were but could start in on what

22、 actual icarnen did and see what there syntax and phonology ccnsisittl using the teamen* uwu spewh or writing in a sene a bofunn-up dnta-lcd process nithcr than a lcp-dou*n lheofy-ha5ed one.yd, dopitc paying lip-service t<i inter aogujgc. the vast mority of sla research never quilc accepted the i

23、irt er language assumption that learners have to be studied in their own right fn li acquisition rwcarch people had indeed kmicklcd down to the task of looking at the child's uwn language dcvelopmenl ratlier than looking far deviations from adult speech, as mom intnxiuaions to li acquisition sho

24、w to ihis day. say bloom (2002) and clarke (2003). l2 learners, however, were at every turn measured againm the monolinfjinil native speaker, both overtly 牌 shown by rrmarks like iteiativc to nmive lin&uktic competence. harncm inici language is dctkiwil by definition (kasper & kellerman i997

25、> s). and covertly through research techniques such as granimalicality jiklgmenls uul implicitly use the native speaker» a touchstone.the most influential concept taken fiwn li uquisilion research was undoublodly that of devekipmcmal sequence. li children were believed to prowess through dis

26、tinct stages in language acquisition, just m their cognition clcseloprd tfirmigh 勺ages whether those of pingct (piaget a labelder, 1969) or bruner (i966x bfiwn (1973) made the first major limgitudinal study of (he language of three children, followed by gonkm welb* monumental attempt at recording 12

27、4 children (wcg 1981) and bruner.i obicnatkmu of 120 children (bruner, 1983). in a sense such longitudinal projects aimed al esublishing the stages of development; what does the child leam first.second. <>.? explanations of the sequence were tagged on_鼠3 bad been dcscritxxt liclhcf the semanti

28、c explanations of brown, the functional theories of wells or the social interaction of bruner.dulay and burt (1974) applied the brmn study techniques to the l2 devclopincrl of so-called gramniatioil morphemes sueb as prtpoiitions to and in and grammatical inltechons such as -ing and *s. they found e

29、vidence for an l2 sequence that was similar to but nonetheless distinct from tbc li sequence ia brown (1973). sequence of ucquisition fen dnminatod sla resenrch ever since; ma簡g ertbrts have gone into investigating which wunds are learnt first (majw. 1w), which structures (zobl & liccra3f i9wx a

30、nd counties other meav the order in uhich things are acquired 代 then taken to be (he crucial emdcucc for language acquisition. few l2 studies have looked nt overall development through longitudinal corpus ftndid 叩art perhaps fnxn ihc work of the esf projcvl with inigraiil workers (klein & perdue

31、. 1997) or wodc*$ study of hh children (wode. 281). the i ? exphnntion fm the order of li development atfoer deny the need for an expknabon « 計 k jg "natural as in the natural order hypothecs (krrahen. i0a5). or nrv hasm on 1 single aspect of development, whether the social 沖nitix dimension of the esf (klein & perdue. 1997) or the parameter sening/rcsetting of the llnivem! (iramm；ir 紂wrath偵s (while, 2003)hardly anybody seems to have uken heed of chomakyp insistence (hat