鲨鱼明师翻译稿

WPA: Speaking of inquiry, if you were given time and resources to conduct research in the

fields of FL/SL instruction and applied linguistics, what would you investigate?

DLF: I don't believe that one method is necessarily inherently superior in all cases to another.

However, I'm interested these days in the debate that I'll try to encapsulate as the PPP vs. PPP

[laughter]. That should be transparent! That is, the traditional approach to teaching has often

been called the PPP approach: the teacher presents something, the students practice it and then

they produce it in a more open-ended fashion

WPA：说到调查，如果你有时间和资源在外语/外语教学和应用语言学领域进行研究，你会调查什么？

DLF：我不认为一种方法在所有情况下都必然优于另一种方法。然而，这些天我对这场辩论很感兴趣，我将尝试将其概括为展示—练习—输出法vs.展示—练习—输出法

[笑声]那应该是显而易见的！也就是说，传统的教学方法被称为展示—练习—输出法：老师展示内容，学生练习，然后他们以更开放的形式输出。

But it seems to me these days in communicative language teaching, task-based approaches, and

content-based approaches, students start out producing the language. They have a task where

they are engaged in making meaningful communication to the best of their abilities. Obviously it

won't be totally comprehensible, accurate or fluent, but they do some kind of productive task.

And then there may be a practice phase and then the teaching concludes not with a teacher

presentation per se but perhaps with a teacher-led opportunity to consolidate the learning, say, in the case of grammar, to articulate or induce a grammar rule from the experience they have just

had in using the language

但在我看来，现在在交际语言教学、任务型教学法以及内容导向教学法，学生们开始语言产出。他们的任务是尽其所能进行有意义的交流。很明显交流不会那么好理解、准确或流畅，但他们做了一些卓有成效的工作。然后可能会有一个实践阶段，然后教学就结束了，不是老师展演，而可能是由教师主导的机会，以巩固所学知识。比如从语法层面，在使用语言时，从学生的经验中阐明或引出语法规则。

It seems to me, and Peter Skehan said this too, it's turning the PPP upside down: production,

practice, presentation, where the presentation is really the result of an inductive process. Practice is still in the middle.

I don't know if I could even control the experimentation; there are too many possible

confounding variables. But I would be curious to see if any different learning outcomes arise

from the two different sequences of Ps

在我看来，彼得·斯凯汉也这么说，它正在把展示—练习—输出法颠倒过来：输出，练习，展示，展示实际上是归纳过程的结果。练习仍然处于中间位置。

我不知道我是否能控制实验；有太多可混淆变量了。但我很想知道是否有不同的学习结果从这两个不同的序列中出现。

WPA: Any other topics that you would like to investigate if you had the time and resources?

DLF: I think a fascinating development now is all the linguistic corpora that are being produced

around the world, the data bases we are now getting through the use of computer technology. It's affecting our view of language. People are much more aware now that language, albeit partially rule governed, is made up of a number of lexicalized phrases, things like“by the way,” and lexicalized sentence stems “I am very sorry to hear that…” or “I am terribly sorry to learn

that….” Those kinds of beginning sentence fragments that you then complete with whatever you are sorry to hear or learn about. There is an enormous number of these phrases and lexicalized sentence stems that users of a language avail themselves of in order to communicate in a fluent manner.

WPA：如果你有时间和资源，你还想调研其他的主题吗？

DLF：我认为现在一个令人惊喜的发展就是所有正在产生的语言语料库。在世界各地，我们正在利用计算机技术建立数据库。它影响我们对语言的看法。人们现在更加意识到语言，尽管部分地受到语法规则限制，是由一些词汇化的短语组成，比如“顺便说一下”，以及词汇化句子的词干是“听到这个我很难过…”或“知道....我非常难过”“那些你用你听到或了解到..很难过的任何内容来完成的开头句子片段。大量的这种短语和词汇化句子来源于语言使用者为了用流畅的语言来交流的意图。

It would be really interesting to do some kind of a study looking at teaching rules versus teaching

these patterns. Or even before that, say that language is made up of an enormous number of these patterns in their permutations and combinations. Does that mean we should teach them? Are they systematic enough to teach or are we just going to get a phrase book kind of syllabus? And if there is some systematicity, if it isn't just a matter of mapping these phrases over a whole

semester or several years of courses, then what's the best way to teach them? It seems to me they are memorized holistic phrases. Do we just send our students home to memorize these phrases? Do we just get them to repeat after us? What is the best way to help students learn to use these in a fluent, accurate, and appropriate manner?

做一项研究，看看教学规则，而不是教学模式，这真的很有趣。甚至在那之前，说语言是由大量模式的排列组合。这是否意味着我们应该教他们？它们是可以足够系统地来教学，或者我们只是得到一个类似教学大纲的短语书？如果有一些系统性，如果不仅仅是把这些短语映射到一个学期或几年的课程，那么最好的教学方法是什么？在我看来他们是记忆完整的短语。我们是否只是让学生回家去记忆这些短语？我们只是让他们跟着我们重复吗？最好的以流利、准确和适当的方式帮助学生学习的方法是什么？

WPA: Looking ahead to the next ten years, where do you see the field going? What do you think

will be the issues that we are discussing and debating then?

DLF: I think the dominant metaphor in our field for language is changing. I think the field is

struggling with the way it conceptualizes its subject matter. For many teachers, researchers, and

students, language is seen as atomized, comprised of pieces, which are governed by some fairly

rigid rules. Acquiring a language then is a matter of“getting” the pieces. I have become

interested in Chaos/Complexity science because it has helped me to realize that this description

is not the only way of looking at language. We need a new metaphor. I understand now that

language can be seen as a process, as much as a set of products. I also believe that language is

more organic than it is rigid and that acquiring a language is more of a matter of participating

than it is of“getting.” I think the field is moving in seeing language and its acquisition in these

ways too.

WPA：展望未来十年，你认为这个领域将走向何方？你怎么认为我们那时讨论和辩论的问题是什么？

DLF：我认为我们语言领域的主要隐喻正在改变。我想这个领域正在与它的主题概念化的方式进行角逐。对于许多教师、研究人员和学生来说，语言被看作是原子化的，由一些碎片组成的。这些碎片受一些公平严格的规则约束，掌握一门语言就是“掌握”这些碎片。我已经

对混沌/复杂性科学感兴趣，因为它帮助我认识这种描述不是看待语言的唯一方式。我们需要一个新的比喻。我现在明白了语言可以被看作是一个过程，就像一组产品一样。我也相信语言是有机的，而不是僵化的。获得一种语言更像是一个参与的过程。而不只是“获取”。我认为这一领域正在朝着以这些方式看待语言及语言习得方面变化

WPA: What is Chaos/Complexity science?

DLF: Chaos/Complexity science is the study of complex, nonlinear, dynamic processes as they

occur in the physical world. I do not think that teaching and learning are physical sciences, but I

do think that a Chaos/Complexity Theory lens helps us look at what we do in new ways. After

all, I can't think of anything more complex, nonlinear, and dynamic than language and its

acquisition. I'll give you an example of how we can learn to look with fresh eyes.

什么是混沌/复杂性科学？

混沌/复杂性科学是研究复杂、非线性、动态过程的科学。他们发生在物质世界。我不认为教学和学习是物理科学，但我确实认为混沌/复杂性理论透镜可以帮助我们以新的方式看待我们所做的事情。总之，我想不出比语言及语言习得更复杂、非线性和动态的东西了。我给你举个例子，告诉你我们怎样才能学会用崭新的眼光看问题。

I think that language learning is often viewed as an additive, linear process. We teach this piece

and then that piece and we expect that our students will acquire them one by one. However, that

is not what happens. Language learning is a nonlinear process. For example, you are learning the

tenses, and you're doing fine; you learn the simple present, the present progressive, the simple

past, and the teacher introduces the present perfect, and then, rather than making progress, your performance actually becomes less proficient. You have added another tense and the system you have constructed implodes

我认为语言学习通常被看作是一个加性的线性过程。我们教这一部分，然后再教另一部分。我们希望我们的学生能一个接一个地学会它们。然而，那样不会发生了什么。语言学习是一个非线性过程。例如，你正在学习时态，你做得很好；你学习一般现在时，现在进行时，一般过去时，老师介绍现在完成时。然后你并未取得进展，你的表现实际上变得不那么熟练了。你又加了另一种时态，你已经构建的系统乱作一团。

WPA: But it's rebuilt again, right?

DLF: That's right! We know that there are orderly periods, followed often by periods of chaos

when the system convulses. This happens when something new is introduced and students have

to figure out how it fits into the system, or they have to revise their understanding of the system

in order to accommodate their new awareness. Fortunately, through interaction with others,

eventually, order is restored. That does not mean that what the student now produces is target�like, but a new interlanguage stage may have been reached. So I think the conceptualization of language as a fixed, static, atomistic entity is being challenged by one that is much more nonlinear, organic, and holistic

WPA：但它又被重建了，对吗？

DLF：没错！我们知道当系统震动时，有有序的时期，之后往往是混乱的时期。当一些新事物被引进，学生们不得不去弄清楚它是如何融入系统的，或者他们必须修改对系统的理解以适应他们的新意识。幸运的是，通过与他人的互动，最终，秩序得以恢复。这并不意味着学生现在是目标型的，但一个新的中介语阶段可能已经到来。所以我认为语言作为一个固定的、静态的、原子性的实体，正面临愈加非线性，有机整体的冲击挑战。

WPA: If I understand you correctly, in this description of Chaos/Complexity and its application

to language learning, interlanguage would be a very importance concept for teachers to

understand. There is a process of learning and interlanguage is what it is called, and if it is

nonlinear, then a loss might not be a permanent loss.

DLF: You could even say a loss is a sign of progress! The point is that it is not a linear process.

You are not going to see a direct line; it is full of peaks and alleys. Learners are not speaking

something that's deficient, but rather a language of their own that's somewhere in the middle

between the two. It's a creative process. I think it is much better to think of it as having hills and

valleys and in some case there is some backsliding.

WPA：如果我理解正确的话，在这个关于混乱/复杂性及其应用的描述中，对于语言学习来说，中介语对教师来说是理解中非常重要的概念。有一个学习的过程，中介语就是它所说的，如果是非线性的，那么损失可能不是永久性的损失。

DLF:你甚至可以说失败是进步的标志！关键是它不是一个线性过程。你不会看到一条直线，它满是高峰和低谷。学习者不会说有缺陷的东西，但更确切地说是他们自己的语言，在中间的某个地方，在两者之间。这是一个创造性的过程。我觉得把它想象成有高峰和低谷会更好。

在有些情况下，会有一些倒退。