Post on 30-May-2018
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
1/66
KHOA S PHM TING ANH
B MN PHNG PHP GING DY TING ANH
BO CO NGHIN CU KHOA HCNM HC 2009-2010
THNG 5, 2010
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
2/66
MC LC
Stt
Bi vit Tc gi
1 Dy Ting Anh cho tr tiu hc Vit Nam: C s l
lun ca ti
Trn Lan Anh
Trn Hin Lan2 A Cross-sectional Error Analysis in Compositions by
HULIS Students: Discussion of Frequency, Common
Types, and Major Causes
Nguyn Ch c
3 Gender Differences in Language Learning Strategies
Use
Cao Thy Hng
3 Literature Teaching in ELT: Some GeneralBackground Issues
Lc nh Quang
4 Mt s lu v vic khai thc s dng ti liu thc
trong ging dy ngoi ng
Nguyn Thu Hin
Phm Minh Tm
Nguyn Th Thy
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
3/66
Dy Ting Anh cho tr tiu hc Vit Nam: C s l lun ca ti
Trn Hin Lan
Trn Th Lan Anh
(T phng php ging dy Ting Anh)
Tm tt
Bi vit l mt phn ca nghin cu khoa hc hin ang trong qu trnh thc hin v hin
trng dy ting Anh cho tr ti mt s trng tiu hc H Ni, Vit Nam. Trong bn
bo co ny, chng ti s tp trung i vo phn c s l lun ca ti vi nhng ni
dung chnh nh: tr con hc ngoi ng theo cch no, phng php dy ting Anh cho tr
c khc vi ngi ln hay khng, mt s phng php dy ting Anh cho tr trn th gii
l g v cui cng l vic dy hc cho tr gp nhng kh khn g Vit Nam. Phn
nghin cu v kt lun ca ti ca chng ti s c trnh by nhng bi bo co
tip theo.
M uTc ton cu ha nhanh chng trong mt vi thp k gn y m ra cho mi quc gia
rt nhiu c hi giao lu, tip xc vi cc quc gia khc. Ngoi ng l cng c hu hiu
qu trnh giao thoa gia cc nn vn ha din ra thnh cng. Vic hc ngoi ng t n
tr thnh mt nhu cu bc thit ca mi ngi. Ngoi ng khi khng ch c vai tr
quan trng trong s nghip gio dc o to m cn rt quan trng trong s pht trin
kinh t, x hi, vn ha, v.v. ca mt t nc. Trong cc ngn ng thng dng hin nay,
theo t in bch khoa ton th m wikipedia, Ting Anh (TA) l ngn ng ph thngth ba trn th gii v l ngn ng bn a ca khong 402 triu ngi vo nm 2002. Do
, xu hng s dng TA nh th ting ton cu (lingua-franca) l kt qu tt yu ca
qu trnh ton cu ha ang din ra mnh m. Nhn thc c tm quan trng ca TA,
chnh ph cc nc trn th gii khuyn khch ngi dn t c thng tho TA,
cng chnh l p ng nhu cu ca thi i.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
4/66
Cho ti gia nhng nm 90 ca th k trc, ting Anh mi ch c bt u dy bc
ph thng c s. Chnh ph huynh hc sinh l nhng ngi tin rng TA l mt cng c
hu hiu thc y s thnh cng ca tr em trong tng lai (Brewster & Ellis, 2002,
tr.1) nn cn phi c dy trong trng hc sm hn na. Theo Brewster & Ellis
(2002), mt l do nn bt u hc ngoi ng ni chung hay TA ni ring sm hn,
tui 6 hay 7 thay v 11 hay 12 nh trc, l tng khong thi gian hc ngn ng .
Chnh iu t ra mt xu hng mi cho ngnh gio dc, l, dy ting Anh
la tui thp hn, hay ni cch khc, lng ghp ni dung dy TA vo bc tiu hc.
Theo s liu t V GD tiu hc (2005), Vit Nam l mt trong nhiu nc chu bt
u p dng dy TA bc tiu hc t u nhng nm 90 ca th k trc, u tin l mtmn hc t chn v gn y tr thnh mn hc bt buc. Tuy nhin, cng ging nh mt
s nc trong khu vc, chng ta gp khng t nhng kh khn khi p dng chnh sch
gio dc ny. Mt trong nhiu l do l i tng dy hc ca chng ta l cc em nh,
tui t 5 n 12. Vic dy TA cho hc sinh tiu hc cn phi lu nhng im g v
tm sinh l la tui? Tr hc TA ging hay khc vi cch hc ting m ? C thch
thc no cho gio vin (GV) v phng php ging dy so vi khi dy ngi ln? Trong
gn 2 thp k p dng vic dy TA bc tiu hc Vit Nam, chng ta gp nhng kh
khn g? Bi vit ca chng ti di y s i vo phn tch, tng hp, khi qut phn c
s l lun ca nhng nghin cu t trc n nay tr li nhng cu hi .
Qu trnh c th ting m v ngn ng th hai tr c khc nhau khng?
Theo Chomsky (1969), tr tui t 5 n 8 vn ang trong qu trnh tip th ting m
. Mc ch chnh ca tr tui ny l hc cch giao tip vi nhng ngi xung
quanh bng ting m . V vy, khi hc ting Anh, tr ang thc hin cng mt lc hai
vic: vic pht trin v hon thin ting m v vic tip th ting Anh. rt nhiu ni
trn th gii, tr nh c th hc 2 ngn ng hoc nhiu hn (De Houwer, 1999).
Vn gy tranh ci trong mt thi gian di gia cc nh nghin cu l nn cho tr bt
u hc ngoi ng t tui no. C phi hc cng sm th cng tt hay khng? Mt s
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
5/66
quan im ph bin gn y cho rng tr nh tip nhn ngn ng tt hn ngi ln tui
v iu ny gii thch l do ti sao nhiu nc trn th gii dy ngoi ng cho tr t cp
tiu hc. Theo Ellis (1994), nu nh tr c tip xc vi pht m chun, tui m tr
c th t c pht m ging nh ngui bn ng l 6 tui. Ngoi tui dy th
(khong 9 tui tr ln) th tr s kh c th c c cht ging ging ngi bn ng thc
s. Nhng Lightbown v Spada (1993, tr. 50) cho rng tr hc ngoi ng tui
mun hn, khong 11-12 tui s c th d dng theo kp c cc bn hc sm hn. V
th, theo 2 nh nghin cu ny, cc chng trnh dy ngoi ng cho tr nn da vo
khong thi gian tnh ton theo thc t khi tr hc ngoi ng quyt nh tui ph
hp. Hc 1 n 2 gi mt tun trong vng 7 n 8 nm cng khng ng ngha vi vic
ngi hc s t c trnh cao cp.
Theo Brewster v Ellis (2002), vic c th ting m v ngn ng th hai ca tr v c
bn ging nhau v qu trnh hc mc d iu kin v mi trng hc c th rt khc
nhau. Theo Ellis (1994), c mt giai on gi l giai on im lng khi tr hc ting m
. l khi cc em quan st, lng nghe v c th giao tip thng qua nhng biu hin
trn khun mt hay c ch trc khi cc em bt u ni. Khi tr hc TA, cng s c mt
giai on im lng tng t nh th din ra khi m tr c th giao tip v hiu trc c
khi cc em thc s ni c mt t TA no . Trong sut giai on ny, cha m khng
nn bt tr ni chuyn vi mnh bng vic bt cc em nhc li cc t. Cc cuc hi thoi
ch nn din ra mt chiu, ngha l cha m ni chuyn tr c c hi hc ting. Khi cha
m tr chuyn bng th ngn ng n gin (iu chnh theo ngn ng ca tr) kch
thch vic hc ngoi ng tr, cc em c th s dng nhiu chin lc ngn ng m cc
em vn s dng khi hc ting m .
Sau giai on im lng s l bn giai on khi hc mt ngn ng nh sau: u tin, tr c
kh nng bt chc ngi ln v t mnh tm ra cc quy tc ca ngn ng, sau tr khi
qut cc quy tc da vo mt s im ging nhau m chng gp khi tip xc vi ngn
ng ; giai on tip theo, tr bt u khi qut ha v s dng cc quy tc mt cch
khng chnh xc v cui cng, tr t rt ra c quy tc ng nht v s dng mt cch
chnh xc (Brewster & Ellis, 2002, tr.20). Khi bt u ni c, ty thuc vo tn sut
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
6/66
tip xc vi TA m tr ni nhng t n gin (con mo, ngi nh) hay nhng cm t
ngn trong giao tip (Ci g kia?, Con khng th, l ci t, n lc v nh)
hay nhng cu m ngi ln khng ng ti. Tr c kh nng to nn nhng cu ting
Anh hon chnh sm hay mun ph thuc vo s ln cc em c tip xc vi ngn ng
ny v cht lng ca nhng ln tip xc .
Trong qu trnh chuyn giao gia cc giai on, vic mc li din ra rt t nhin. Theo
Ellis (1994), tr em cc nc khc nhau khi hc TA s c kh nng mc nhng li
ging nhau. V d khi hc th qu kh, hu ht ngi hc ni chung v tr em ni ring
u mc chung mt li l khi qut ha quy tc thm ed. Thay v I went, s l I
goed. Tuy vy, I goeds sm c sa thnh wentnu tr nghe ngi ln nhc liyes, you wenthay c th sau mt thi gian tr bit c trng hp bt quy tc ca
ng t. Cng ging nh hc ting m , mt khi tr c c hi nghe ngi ln nhc li
cho ng nhng t m cc em c sai, lc no cc em s t sa li sai ca mnh.
Nh vy, khc vi ngi ln, tr em tip nhn ngn ng m khng nhn thc c rng
mnh ang hc ngn ng . Nhng em c c hi hc mt ngn ng khc ngoi ting m
khi cc em cn nh s s dng nhng chin lc hc ngn ng bm sinh tng t sut
cuc i khi hc thm nhng ngn ng khc. Hc ngn ng th ba, th t s d dng hn
l hc ngn ng th hai.
Nhng khc bit v gii tnh
Theo kt qu ca cc nghin cu trong mn c th ngn ng (Ellis, 1994), cc b gi c
nng khiu hc ngoi ng hn l b trai. S d c s khc bit gia hai gii tnh bi no
ca cc b trai pht trin khc vi no ca cc b gi v iu ny nh hng n vic hc
v s dng ngn ng ca cc em. V vy, khi dy hc cc b, ngi gio vin phi lu
n s khc bit ny, v s dng mt s cch dy khc nhau i vi tng gii tnh.
cc b trai c th pht huy kh nng ca mnh, chng ta cn dy cc em theo cch khc
vi cc b gi v cng khng nn so snh thnh tch ca cc em vi cc b gi.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
7/66
Mi trng hc ngn ng
Nh ni trn, mi trng hoc hay iu kin hc ngoi ng nh hng rt ln n
vic tip nhn ngn ng (Brewster & Ellis, 2002). Cc hot ng hc phi gn vi cc
hot ng th v hng ngy quen thuc vi tr nh c chung mt quyn truyn tranhbng TA, c mt cu th bng ting Anh hay n qu theo kiu Anh. Khi tr tham gia
vo cc hot ng hc, ngi ln nn tng thut ti ch nhng g ang din ra v ni
chuyn vi tr bng th ngn ng n gin ph hp vi tr. Cc bi hc ting Anh nn
th v v tp trung vo nhng khi nim m tr hiu trong ting m . Theo tr
khng phi hc hai th cng mt lc, mt khi nim mi v mt ngn ng mi, m ch
n gin l hc ting Anh ni v nhng th g quen thuc vi tr. Nu c thm
nhng vt c th gip tr hiu nhanh hn v tng hng th cho tr khi tham gia vo
cc hot ng hc.
S ng h ca cha m
Cha m gi vai tr quan trng trong vic ng vin v gip tr trong vic hc. c
s h tr ca cha m, tr s pht huy c kh nng tp trung v ghi nh. Cha m khng
ch gip tr vn dng ngn ng hc c v gn cc hot ng hc vo cuc sng gia
nh m cn c th tc ng n thi ca tr i vi vic hc ngn ng v nhng nn
vn ha khc. Vic hc ting Anh s tr nn kh khn hn vi tr nh nu chng ta
khng c cch dy thch hp km theo s ng h ca cha m thng qua k thut dng
ngn ng n gin (iu chnh theo ngn ng ca tr).
Tm li, chng ta tr li c cu hi tr hc ngoi ng nh th no, c s ging nhau
v khc nhau gia vic hc ting m v ngn ng th hai hay khng. phn tip theo,
chng ta s tm hiu su thm v la tui tiu hc m bi vit ny hng ti. S d c
im tm l, tnh cch ca tr cn c ni ti v chnh iu ny quyt nh cho cu hiliu rng phng php dy hc cho tr c khc vi phng php dy ngi ln hay
khng.
Mt s c im tm l ca tr bc tiu hc
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
8/66
Tr em la tui tiu hc c hiu l cc em tui t 5 n 12. tui ny, theo
Brewster v Ellis (2002), c mt s c im tm l c trng ca la tui nh sau:
- t m, thch khm ph
- thc th
- sng to, giu tr tng tng
- hot bt, thch di chuyn
- c kh nng bt chc rt tt
- nhy cm vi m v giai iu ca ngn ng
- nhit tnh khm ph cc m mi hc
- thch hc qua thc tin
- d b bun chn- hc chm hn nhng qun nhanh hn ngi hc ln tui hn
- t lo lng hn nhng ngi hc ln tui hn
Ngoi ra, theo Brewster v Ellis (2002), chng ta cn nh rng biu hin tm l ca tr
khng lun lun tng ng vi tui pht trin. S khc bit v tm l ca tr nh
tui tiu hc rt ln. Chnh v vy, chng ta khng xp cc tr sinh cng nm vo mt
nhm v coi nh chng c c im tnh cch nh nhau. Brewster v Ellis cho rng,
chng ta c th chia la tui tiu hc ny thnh 3 nhm: 3-6 tui, 7-9 tui v 10-12 tui.
C mt s s khc bit v mt sinh hc v cm xc ca tr c th lit k ra y. Th
nht, tr nh thng hay quan tm n xc cm ca ring mnh m t n xc cm
ca ngi khc. Mt s tr khng c tnh hp tc hoc rt d ni cu nu nhu cu ca
mnh khng c p ng. Th hai, mt s hot ng cho tr ch nn ngn gn, a dng
bi sc ca tr khng bn. Mt s tr tnh cm tm l khng n nh, c th c s bt
pht v mt cm xc (Roth, 1998 trch trong Brewster & Ellis, 2002). Nhng tr tui
nh cn phi c khuyn khch pht trin s t tin, tnh t tn v tnh hp tc khi chi
vi tr khc. Hot ng hc vi tr nh cn phi kt hp s di chuyn, lp i lp li nhiu
ln tr cm thy an ton. Khng kh lp hc phi d chu, m cng ni tr c to c
hi c th hc tt v c khen ngi.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
9/66
Nh vy mt s biu hin cm xc, trng thi tm sinh l ca tr tui tiu hc
c nghin cu kh k lng qua cc nghin cu ca mn Tm l hc la tui v mn
c th ngn ng. Qua , chng ta thy tr tiu hc l i tng hc khc hon ton vi
nhng ngi hc ln tui. Nhng kin thc ny s lm nn tng gip ngi gio vin
la chn phng php ging dy ngoi ng cho ph hp.
Mt s phng php dy ting Anh cho tr bc tiu hc
Hin nay trn th gii vic dy hc ngoi ng cho tr tiu hc thng theo mt s
phng php dy sau:
Phng php nghe ni (Audio-Lingual Method)
Phng php ny pht trin n r vo nhng nm 50 ca th k trc, da ch yu vo
quan nim rng tr hc c l do bt chc t ngi ni v hnh thnh phn x theo thi
quen (Richard v Rogers, 1996). Hin tng ngn ng mi c gii thiu ch yu qua
cc bi hi thoi. Mc d ngy nay phng php ny khng cn thng dng nhng chng
ta khng th ph nhn mt tch cc ca phng php ny. l, vic hc v thc hnh
ngoi ng khng i hi phi trin khai cc hot ng theo cp, nhm. Ngn ng dy
hon ton c th d on c t trc, v do , GV khng phi qu vt v khi chun bbi. Phng php ny c bit c li vi GV c trnh chuyn mn thp v vi hc sinh
quen vi cch hc th ng, bt chc, t sng to. Mt khc, phng php ny thch
hp dy nghe hay luyn pht m cho tr bi tr pht huy c kh nng bt chc ca
mnh.
Phng php hnh ng tr li (Total Physical Response)
Phng php ny da ch yu vo kinh nghim hc ting m ca tr. Cha m thnghay s dng ngn ng c th khi giao tip vi con. Khi cha m hng dn bng hnh
ng, kt hp vi li ni th tr s lm theo. Phng php ny cho php tr di chuyn v
phn x tch cc vi ngn ng (Richard v Rogers, 1986, tr. 87-97). Vi gio vin theo
phng php ny, c mt s bc thc hin in hnh nh sau:
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
10/66
- GV pht m mt t hoc mt cm t, sau minh ha bng hnh ng
- GV ra yu cu v c thy-tr u thc hin hnh ng
- GV ra yu cu, ch mnh tr thc hin hnh ng
- GV yu cu tr thc hin hnh ng vi nhau
Phng php ny ph hp dy t vng c lin quan n hnh ng (v d: nghe, nhn,
ni, ci, i, dng li), mt s th qu kh, hin ti, tng lai n gin v tip din (v
d: Every morning I clean my teeth, I make my bed, I eat breakfast); mt s ngn ng
lp hc; cu mnh lnh (Open your books) hay k chuyn. Do phn ngn ng c dy
kh n gin nn phng php ny ch yu c p dng khi dy tr lm quen vi TA,
giai on u ca la tui tiu hc.
ng hng tip cn t nhin (Natural Approach)
Tracy Terrell v Stephen Krashen l hai nh nghin cu i tin phong trong ng hng
ny. ng hng ny nhn mnh kha cnh giao tip ca ngn ng, cho rng ngn ng
l din t ng ngha v chuyn ti thng ip. Mt s giai on ca ng hng tip
cn t nhin nh sau:
Giai on 1: Tin ngn ng
Tr hiu ngi khc ni nhng khng phn ng li c bng li. Tr c th phn ng
bng hnh ng.
- Giai on 2: Lm quen vi ngn ng
Tr bt u pht m c mt s t hoc cm t n gin, quen thuc.
- Giai on 3: S dng ngn ng
Tr c mt vn t nht nh nhng cng gii hn nhng cu ngn. Tr thch tham gia
vo hi thoi v c th t nhng cu hi n gin.
- Giai on 4: t tri chy va phi
Tr bt u hc cch a ra kin, tranh lun, v,v. t nhng cu phc khi din t camnh.
- Giai on 5: t c tri chy cao
Tr c vn t vng phong ph theo ch , v c th tham gia vo bt c hot ng hc
no ca lp.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
11/66
ng hng giao tip (Communicative Approach)
ng hng giao tip pht trin vo gia nhng nm 70 ca th k trc vi vic nhn
mnh kha cnh giao tip, tng tc x hi trong qu trnh hc ngoi ng. Ngn ng c
coi l cng c biu t ng ngha. Chc nng chnh ca ngn ng l tng tc vgiao tip mt cch thc th. im nhn ca ng hng ny l vic ch trng dy ng
ngha nhiu hn c php. Mc li c coi l mt phn t nhin ca qu trnh hc. Khi
dy tr theo cch ny, cc hot ng hc phi to cho tr nhng tnh hung giao tip thc
t tr c th s dng ngn ng mt cch t nhin. Tuy nhin, cch dy ny b ch trch
l ch trng kh nhiu n kh nng giao tip v tri chy trong khi ng php cha
ng vai tr quan trng c bit.
Dy hc theo nhim v (Task-based Teaching)
y l mt trong nhng cch tip cn v phng php hin i nht hin nay. Vic dy
hc theo nhim v ra i khc phc nhng ch trch ca ng hng giao tip. N
c coi l s cn bng gia tnh chnh xc v thnh tho, tng tnh xc thc ca ngn
ng ca ngi hc. Vic dy hc theo nhim v c chia thnh ba giai on: Giai on
tin nhim v: GV gii thiu nhim v, cung cp mt s kin thc ngn ng mi v lm
mu mt qu trnh thc hin nhim v. Giai on hai l giai on tr tin hnh nhim v
theo cp/nhm, bao gm c vic tr chun b cho vic trnh by v sn phm ca nhm v
bo co cho c lp.Giai on ba tp trung vo phn ngn ng, c th l ng php v t
vng v phn thc hnh.
Dy hc theo ni dung (Content-based Teaching/ Immersion Language Teaching)
Hin nay phng php dy ting Anh ny kh ph bin cc trng, cc trung tm TA
cho tr c gio vin bn ng. Cch dy ny da theo 2 nguyn tc chnh: i) tr c nmvo mi trng ngn ng v n s t xoay x; ii) dy ni dung qua ngn ng, tc l
im nhn khng phi ngn ng m l ni dung m ngn ng truyn ti. Vi cch
dy immersion language teaching, tr em s c gii thiu vi cc ch , hc t vng
xung quanh ch mt cch t nhin v ngn ng th t thm vo mt cch t nhin.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
12/66
Nh vy chng ta va im qua cc ng hng, phng php dy ngoi ng cho tr
em ni chung v cho tr bc tiu hc ni ring. Cc phng php ny hu ht
tng c p dng dy cho ngi hc ln tui nhng chiu ngc li, c
ngha l cc phng php dy hc cho ngi ln c th s khng c hiu qu
khi dy cho tr em. Vic dy hc cho tr em khc hn vi dy cho ngi ln
ch gio vin phi s dng phng php ph hp vi tui v mc pht
trin ngn ng ca tr. S dng phng php dy truyn thng nh phng
php Ng Php- Dch hay lm dng phng php Nghe-Ni l hon ton khng
ph hp vi tr. Mt gio vin ngoi ng cn phi tng minh v quy trnh dy
hc theo cc phng php trn, kt hp vi s hiu bit v tm l la tui
la chn c phng php ph hp vi tng thi im. iu s to iu
kin tt nht cho s tip nhn v pht trin ngn ng tr tiu hc. Ni tm li,hot ng hc s ch thnh cng nu gio vin c o to bi bn v tm l la
tui, cch x l cc tnh hung s phm dnh ring cho tr tiu hc, cng nh
la chn phng php dy hc ph hp tng thi im. phn sau, chng ti
s ni r hn nhng kh khn v phng php dy hc m gio vin tiu hc
cc nc trong khu vc v c bit l Vit Nam gp phi khi dy TA cho tr.
Hin trng dy v hc Ting Anh bc tiu hc cc nc trong khu vc
Cuc kho st gn y nht ca Grassick (2007) mt s nc trong khu vc chu cho
thy, hu ht cc nc u bt u dy ting Anh cho tr t u nhng nm 90, ring
Philippines bt u t nm u th k 20 (1901), v Nht Bn bt u mun hn (2002).
Trong s 8 nc thuc phm vi nghin cu, ch c Singapore v Philippines coi TA l
ngn ng chnh thc (official language) cn cc nc khc TA c xem l ngoi ng
(foreign language).
Trong khi TA l mn hc bt buc i vi hc sinh tiu hc Singapore, Philippines,Thi Lan, Hn Quc v i Loan, th Vit Nam, Nht Bn, v Indonesia TA cho bc
tiu hc vn cn l mn t chn.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
13/66
V thi gian bt u hc ting Anh, cng c mt s s khc bit. Mt s nc bt u
dy TA ngay t khi tr hc lp 1 (Singapore, Philippines v Thi Lan) nhng mt s
nc nc bt u mun hn - t lp 3 (Hn Quc, i Loan, Nht Bn v Vit Nam).
Indonesia bt u t lp 4. Ngoi ra, s gi hc sinh tiu hc cc nc hc TA chnh
lch nhau cng ng k. Philippines c s gi hc cao nht vi 90 pht/ngy, Nht Bn
thp nht vi khong 12 n 20 gi/nm, cn Vit Nam, i Loan, Indonesia v Hn
Quc hc sinh hc khong t 40 n 80 pht/tun.
Nhng kh khn
Theo Grassick, vic dy TA bc tiu hc cc nc trong khu vc c chung nhng kh
khn nh sau:
- S s lp hc ng, v d Singapore l 30 v Philippines ln n 60- Trnh hc sinh khng ng u khin vic t chc dy hc gp nhiu tr ngi
- Thiu ngun GV c o to bi bn chuyn nghip
- Thiu mi trng giao tip bng ting Anh trong v ngoi lp hc
- Thiu ti liu hc tp kch thch c sng to v hng th cho hc sinh
- Thi gian hc c b tr cho tng lp qu t
Trong s nhng kh khn trn th kh khn gp phi vi i ng gio vin c coi l
kh khn ln. i ng gio vin l ngun nhn lc ch o khi p dng vic dy TA cho
tr tiu hc. Tuy nhin, theo nghin cu ca Grassick (2007) tnh trng thiu GV TA tiu
hc rt ph bin cc nc trong Thi Lan, Indonesia v Vit Nam l trm trng
nht. mt s nc nh Singapore, Philippines, Nht Bn, Hn Quc v i Loan, ch
c mt gio vin dy tt c cc mn, trong c ting Anh. Cc GV ny c o to
dy bc tiu hc ni chung v trong chng trnh o to c mn ting Anh. Mt s nc
c GV TA ring bit nh Vit Nam, Indonesia v Thi Lan th nhng GV ny li khng
c o to dy cho bc tiu hc. H ch yu l nhng ngi tt nghip i hc hoccao ng s phm o to cho bc trung hc c s (THCS) v trung hc ph thng
(THPT).
Hin trng dy v hc Ting Anh bc tiu hc Vit Nam
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
14/66
Trc ht, chng ta hy xem mc tiu ca gio dc tiu hc hin nay l g. Theo V GD
Tiu hc (B GD&T), mc tiu hin nay m B GD-T t ra i vi vic dy hc
ting Anh bc tiu hc nh sau:
- Bc u hnh thnh cho hc sinh cc k nng giao tip c bn, n gin bng ting
Anh trong giao tip hng ngy nh trng, gia nh v mi trng x hi gn gi vi
hc sinh tiu hc; k nng nghe, ni, c, vit; trong nhn mnh hai k nng nghe v
ni.
- Cung cp cho hc sinh nhng kin thc c bn, n gin v ting Anh, gip hc sinh
bc u c nhng hiu bit v t nc, con ngi, nn vn ho ca mt s nc ni
ting Anh.
- Gp phn hnh thnh cho hc sinh thi tch cc i vi ting Anh, thng qua vic
hc ting Anh hc sinh c thm hiu bit v tnh yu i vi ting Vit. Vic dy hcmn ting Anh cng gp phn hnh thnh phng php hc tp v pht trin nhn cch,
tr tu ca hc sinh.
Vi mc tiu nh vy, vic dy hc TA bc tiu hc ang c thc hin nh th no
Vit Nam l cu hi m phn tip theo chng ti s tr li. Cng theo V GD Tiu hc
(B GD&T) th bnh qun, 3 trng tiu hc th 1 trng dy TA (5.000 trng/ hn
15.000 trng). Theo bo co ca V trng V Tiu hc B GD-T Trnh Quc Thi
(2005), hc sinh tiu hc cc thnh ph ln nh H Ni, H Ch Minh bt u hc TA
t nhng nm 1990 ti cc trung tm ngoi ng hoc cc cu lc b. Nm 1996, B GD-
T c vn bn chnh thc cho php mt s trng tiu hc a mn TA vo dy nh mt
mn t chn mi tun 2 tit. n nm 2000 mt s s GD-T tng bc a mn TA
vo h thng qun l gio dc nh ban hnh cc vn bn hng dn vic dy TA trong
cc trng tiu hc, m cc lp tp hun v phng php ging dy TA cho GV. n
nm 2003, ln u tin B GD-T ban hnh chng trnh mn TA tiu hc bt u t
lp 3, mi tun 2 tit cho cc trng.
Gio vin
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
15/66
Ging nh cc nc trong khu vc, i ng gio vin dy ngoi ng cc trng tiu
hc l mt thch thc vi nn gio dc ca chng ta. Theo 1 s nghin cu gn y
(Moon 2005a, Grassick 2007, Trnh Quc Thi 2005), i ng GV TA bc tiu hc
nc ta hin nay cn hn ch v nng lc chuyn mn, phng php dy hc, v mc
gn b vi ngh nghip. i ng GV TA tiu hc c s chnh lch ng k v trnh
chuyn mn. Theo kt lun ca cc nghin cu m Moon (2005a) tin hnh th GV ngoi
ng c nng lc ting Anh hn ch, th hin ch khng din t c mt cch tri
chy th ting mnh ang dy, hay s dng ting Vit trong gi hc. Moon (2005a)
nhn thy c t nht 50% s GV c d gi ni ting Vit n t nht 80% trong tng
s cc pht ngn trong gi hc. Ngoi ra vic GV lun bm st tng cu ch trong sch
gio khoa ch khng thot ly khi sch dn dt hc sinh i theo mch hng th nhm
to s hp dn v kch thch tnh tch cc v sng to ca hc sinh cng phn nh s hnch v nng lc ngn ng ca h. Cui cng, s yu km v nng lc chuyn mn cn
th hin ch GV thiu cc bin php h tr cho hc sinh nghe hiu TA v khng iu
chnh c ngn ng cho ph hp vi trnh ca hc sinh.
Phng php dy hc
V phng php dy hc, Moon (2005b) cho rng GV TA dy bc tiu hc Vit Nam
p dng phng php ph hp vi ngi ln hn l i vi tr em, vi nhng nt sau:
o Tp trung vo hnh thi ngn ng v tnh chnh xc hn l s thnh tho
o Nhn mnh vo k nng c v vit ngay t giai on u
o Nng v luyn tp nhc i nhc li v c ng thanh c lp vi mc ch cho cc em
hc cc t chun xc mt cch tuyt i
o Thiu s quan tm v c hi cho vic s dng TA mt cch t nhin v thiu mc
ch giao tip.
Nu i chiu vi phn tm tt v cc phng php dy cho tr phn trn, cc cch
dy ny thin v phng php truyn thng Ng Php-Dch hay lm dng phng
php Nghe-Ni. C rt nhiu nguyn nhn, nhng hai trong s c th l v GV
khng hiu c i tng dy hc ca mnh, hay khng c o to v nhng
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
16/66
phng php dy hc cho tr. Moon cng nhn xt rng GV cng cha thc c
cc nhu cu ca hc sinh v t duy, ngn ng v ng c. iu ny th hin ch:
o Dng ngn ng qu phc tp khi a ra li hng dn
o Khng hiu c v sao tr em gp kh khn khi lm bi tpo Gp kh khn trong vic qun l hc sinh thc hin cc hot ng c tnh cht tch
cc v sng ng hn thng ngy
o Gp kh khn trong vic to ra mi trng hc tp sinh ng cng nh to c mc
ch hp dn tr tham gia cc hot ng
o Thiu cc hot ng hc tp trong i hi tr phi vn dng nhiu gic quan cng
nh s tri nghim ca cc em.
Hn ch v phng php dy hc cn r nt s non km ca GV trong vic qun l lp.
Moon nhn thy GV t khi t chc hc tp theo nhm nh hay theo cp di hnh thc k
chuyn, ng vai, v.v. Hn ch ny c bin minh l do lp ng hay do s lm n nh
hng n gi hc ca cc lp bn cnh. Nhng thc ra theo Moon th y l do thiu
kinh nghim s dng cc hot ng, thiu kin thc v qun l hc sinh khi tham gia hot
ng, v c l do GV ngi tch b l li lm vic quen thuc hn l do s s lp hc
(Moon, 2005a, tr. 27).
Kt lun
Nh vy bi vit ca chng ti trn y c gng tm hiu phn c s l lun cho ti
dy TA cho bc tiu hc Vit Nam. Cc nghin cu tp trung ch ra s ging
nhau v khc nhau trong qu trnh tr tip nhn ting m v ngn ng th hai.
Cc vn v tui, gii tnh, mi trng hc v.v. ng vai tr quan trng
trong vic tip th ngn ng tr. Mt khc, cc nh tm l hc v gio hc phpc nhng kt lun v c im tm sinh l v phng php dy hc cho tr khc
vi phng php dy hc cho ngi ln. phn sau ca bi vit chng ti cng
c gng thng k li kt qu mt s nghin cu gn y v hin trng dy ting
Anh cc nc trong khu vc v Vit Nam. Mt trong nhng vn ln nht
m chng ta gp phi l vic GV dy TA tiu hc thiu trnh chuyn mn v
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
17/66
nghip v s phm dy tr. T phn ny, chng ti c mt s kin lin quan
n chng trnh o to v bi dng gio vin bc tiu hc Vit Nam nh
sau:
thc hin cc vai tr nh cung cp ng liu dy hoc, to ng c, khuyn khch tr
hc ting Anh thng qua cc hot ng li cun, gio vin cn phi c o to v bi
dng mt cch bi bn. Graddol (2006, tr. 89) nhn nh rng dy TA cho bc tiu hc
i hi ngi gio vin phi thng tho ting Anh, c kin thc su rng v pht trin tr
em, v l ngi c kh nng bi dng ng c hc tp cho tr. Trong nhng nm qua,
cc t chc gio dc quc t nh Hi ng Anh, Language Link, NXB Oxford tch
cc gip cc trng tiu hc v v chng trnh, thit b dy hc v k thut dy ting
Anh cho hc sinh tiu hc. Nhiu lp tp hun v phng php ging dy cho GV
c m. Nhng nhng hot ng hp tc ny ch l gii php h tr. Hin nay trng
HNN HQG H Ni ni ring v cc c s o to GV ngoi ng trn c nc ni
chung ch mi thc hin nhim v o to v bi dng gio vin ngoi ng ca trng
ph thng. Trong chng trnh, chng ta cha c nhng kha hc v dy cho i tng
tr em. Nh vy, vic trc tin l thit k xy dng chng trnh dy ngoi ng cho bc
tiu hc chng ta dn xa i s khim khuyt v mt chuyn mn mng o to ny.
Vi 10.000 GV ang dy ting Anh tiu hc hin nay, cc trng H s phm ngoi ngnn thng xuyn m cc lp bi dng cp chng ch dy ting Anh tiu hc c
bit cho nhng gio vin cha c nghip v hoc nng lc ting Anh cn hn ch. Tuy
vy, vic o to v bi dng GV ni ring hay ci cch gio dc ni chung cn mt
khong thi gian nht nh tham kho t nhng nc i trc v sau l s sng
sut, ng b trong cc quyt nh ca nhng b, ngnh gio dc lin quan.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
18/66
Ti liu tham kho
Brewster, J && Ellis, G. (2002). The primary English teachers guide. Harlow: PearsonEducation limited.
Chomsky, C. (1969). The acquisition of syntax in childtren from 5 to 10 . Cambridge, Mass. MIT
Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Graddol, D. (2006).English Next. London: British Council
Grassick (2007). Teaching English at primary level in Vietnam. Paper presented at the Hi tho
Ging dy Ting Anh bc Tiu hc, H Ni.
Moon, J. (2005a).Investigating the teaching of English at primary level in Vietnam: a report.
Paper presented at the Hi tho Ging dy Ting Anh bc Tiu hc, H Ni.
Moon, J. (2005b).Nghin cu v vic ging dy ting Anh bc tiu hc Vit Nam: Bo co tmtt. Paper presented at the Hi tho Ging dy Ting Anh bc Tiu hc, H Ni.
Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. (Eds.) (1996). Approaches and methods in language
Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
19/66
Trnh Quc Thi, (2005). Thc trng vic ging dy ting Anh bc tiu hc Vit Nam. Bo co
c trnh by ti Hi tho Ging dy Ting Anh bc Tiu hc, Ha Ni.
Hgskolan DalarnaScientific Writing Course, EN3013Full Name of Supervisor: Dr. Kristy Beers Fagersten
FINAL VERSION ON SCIENTIFIC WRITING PAPER
A Cross-sectional Error Analysis in Compositions by HULIS
Students:
Discussion of Frequency, Common Types, and Major Causes
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
20/66
Term 2, 2009NGUYEN chi duc
830324-T213
Hgskolan e-mail address: h08cdngu@du.se
Table of Content
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background2.1 The concept of errors and mistakes
2.2 Common types of errors in learner writing
2.3 Causes of errors
2.4 Research gap
3. Methodology and Data
3.1 Collection of sample
3.2 Identification of errors
3.3. Description of errors
3.4 Explanation of errors
4. Data Analysis and Results
4.1 Frequency of errors
4.2 Common errors
4.3 Major causes of errors
4.4 Difference among the four generations of HULIS students
5. Conclusion
References
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
21/66
1. Introduction
For many years, the analysis of learner errors, especially in learner written work has been
a part of language pedagogy. A series of studies have investigated this matter in-depth
and provided many practical implications for the process of second language acquisition.French (1949), for example, generated a comprehensive account of common learner
errors. He also attempted to learn their causes and thereby suggested some techniques to
prevent them. Lee (1957) reported an analysis of some 2,000 errors in the written work of
Czechoslovakian learners, which were then categorized roughly into five groups (wrong
punctuation, misuse or omission of articles, misspelling, non-English construction, and
wrong use of tenses). Lee added that such an analysis would put the teacher in a better
position to decide how teaching time should be spent (cited in Rod Ellis, 1994:32).
Noticeably, it was Corder (1967) that developed the traditional error analysis - which still
lacked both a rigorous methodology and a theoretical framework - into a recognized part
of applied linguistics. Corder also highlighted that errors and error analysis could provide
the teacher with information about how much the learners had learnt and serve as devices
by which the learners discovered the rules of the target language.
However, this subject matter is quite new in the context of Vietnams ELT circle.
In fact, the analysis of learner errors, especially in compositions, has been conducted for
ages, yet unsystematically and incompletely. The teachers tend to focus more on accuracy
errors than those of ideas and idea organization. In their correction, they often signify the
errors to the learners and suggest some guides for the learners to reach the standard
models of the target language. So far, nevertheless, they have made no clear efforts to
learn the causes of such errors and seek possible preventions. There has been a study by
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
22/66
Hoang (2001), in which she tried to interpret the causes of her students writing errors.
Yet her reasoning proved to be rather subjective since she did not interview the learners
to solicit the causes; instead she put them herself, based on her own experience and logic.
This sets the need for an elaborate study on error analysis in the context of Vietnam.
Therefore, the current paper was written to address the four research questions below:
(1) How frequently do errors appear in the learners written works?
(2) Which type(s) of errors are the most common one(s)?
(3) What are the major causes of such errors?
(4) Is there any difference in the errors made by the first-year, second-year, and third-
year students in the studies groups? If yes, what is it?
In its completion, this paper would provide a reference list of common errors that
the students in the studied group often make, elicit possible causes of these errors andprovide some practical prevention keys.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. The concept of errors and mistakes
There have been many definitions of errors in different studies. George (1972), for
example, labeled errors with varied names, based on the group committing the errors:
Children's errors had been seen as "transitional forms", the native speakers' ones were
called "slips of the tongue" and the second language errors were considered "unwanted
forms." Meanwhile, Lennon (1991) produced a contrastive definition, in which he
compared the competence and/or performance of the non-native speakers with that of the
native ones: an error is a linguistic form or combination of forms which in the same
context and under similar conditions of production would, in all likelihood, not be
produced by the native speakers counterparts. In the ELT settings, errors used to be
negatively regarded as an obstacle to language learning. Teachers viewed them as a
symptom of ineffective teaching or as evidence of failure. Therefore, teachers often took
a repressive attitude towards them and employed drill and/or practice as a remedy. It was
not until 1967 that Corder put them as a useful indicator for teachers, researchers and
learners themselves and until 1988 that Doff persuasively affirmed that errors were a
positive step for learners to progress. He argued that when learners made a mistake/error,
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
23/66
he himself was challenging and exploring the language, thus it was a hint for the teacher
to help them internalize the new input.
In everyday language, the concept of errors and mistakes are described as
interchangeable. However, in the light of second language acquisition, they are clearly
distinguished. The well-appraised idea was accredited to Corder (1974) that the error was
what took place when the deviation arose as a result of lack of knowledge whereas the
mistake came up when learners failed to perform their competence. Errors had been
further divided into overt and covert (Corder, 1971), errors of correctness and
appropriateness, as far as identification of error was concerned, and into pre-systematic,
systematic and post-systematic regarding their description.
In this current paper, only deviations categorized as errors are extracted for
discussion, and accordingly those as mistakes would be excluded.2.2. Common Types of Errors in Learner Written Works
Literature have documented many studies on error analysis based on L2 learner written
works. Their findings of common errors would be accumulated in the table below:
Researchers Errors/
Corpus
Target population The most common errors:
Duskova
(1969)
1007/50 50 Czech students of
English
Articles (260), lexis (233), syntax (54),
and word order (31).
Kim (1987) 2455/--- The 12th Korean EFLstudents
To-be and auxiliary verbs (419) andpreposition (287).
Chiang (1993) -----/160 Senior high school
students in Taiwan
Conjunctions, run-on sentences, and
subject-object-complements respectively.Huang (2001) 1700/46 46 English-majored
students in Taiwanese
University
Verb, Noun, Spelling, Article, Preposition,
and Word choice respectively.
Chan (2004) -----/710 710 Hong Kong ESL
students at differentlevel
Lack of control of the copula, incorrect
placement of adverbs, inability to usethere be structure, misuse of the relative
clauses, and confusion in verb transitivity
respectively.Huang (2006) ------/34 34 Taiwanese
English-majored
Usage (55%), mechanics (20%), style
(16%), and grammar (9%)
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
24/66
studentsLee (2008) 401/50 25 sophomore
medical students
(intermediate or
advanced level of
English)
Word order (26%), word use (16%),
preposition (15%) and articles (14%)
Darus (2009) ------/72 72 Malay secondary-
school students
Singular-plural form, verb tense, word
choice, preposition, subject-verb
agreement, and word order respectively.
It can be seen from the table that the majority of the errors are of accuracy (form:
grammar and vocabulary). No or just few belong to ideas, logic of ideas, and organization
of ideas (fluency/meaning). Therefore, the present study would focus more on this matter.
2.3. Causes of Errors
According to Abbott (1980), the primary aim of an EA study is to provide a
psychological explanation or causes. He then plotted the different psycholinguistic
sources involved as follows:
Deviations Competence
(Errors)
Inter-lingual (L1 transfer)Intra-lingual (overgeneralization, transitional, etc.)Unique (induced, etc.)
Performance(Mistakes)
Processing problemCommunication strategies
Many other researchers have come up with other divisions in the competence errors
(Richard, 1971; Dulay and Burt, 1974; Schachter and Celce-Murcia, 1977; Lott, 1983),
however, they are not significant.
Inter-lingual sources of errors can be roughly defined as negative transfers from
the learners first language features (such as: lexical, grammatical or pragmatic) into their
competence and performance during their L2 acquisition. Intra-lingual sources, on the
other hand, refer to the difficulties which originate within the features of the target
language. It can be subdivided as: overgeneralization (when learners yield deviant
structures based on other structures of the target language), ignorance of rule restrictions
(when learners apply the rule to inappropriate contexts), incomplete application of rules
(when learners fail to develop a structure fully), and false concepts hypothesized (when
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
25/66
learners do not completely understand a distinction in the target language) (Ellis, 1996;
Richard, 1995). Unique sources are those errors which are not of inter-lingual or intra-
lingual ones.
Under this category, many other researchers have found out that the majority of
learner errors are due to the negative L1 transfer and/or intra-lingual reasons. Meanwhile,
the unique cause proves to be trivial and tends to occur in the advanced-level learners.
Brown (1994), Littlewood (1995), Lococo (1976), and White (1977) found that L2
learners at a beginning level produce a large number of inter-lingual errors. As these
learners progress more in acquiring the norms of the target language, more intra-lingual
errors are manifested. Moreover, adult learners more commonly produce transfer errors
than child learners.
The same pattern appears in some context of Asian countries. The studies by Kim(1987, 1988, 1989), Chiang (1993), Liu (1999), Huang (2001), Chan (2004), Lee (2008),
Nguyen (2009) all concluded that these two sources are the most popular causes of
learner errors in writings. Their degree, however, varied from research to research. While
Chiang (1993) reported L1 transfer accounted for 70.58% of all the errors recorded in his
target population, Kim (1988) attributed 65% of all the errors in her studied group to
overgeneralization (intra-lingual sources) and only 22% to L1 transfer.
Yet it is worth noting that the bulk of the above research interpreted the sources of
errors subjectively based on the researchers assumptions. They did not conduct any
authoritative interpretation (interviewing the learners) (Corder, 1974) to validate what
were the real causes for learners errors. Therefore, the current study would employ
informal interviews with the authors of these errors, in line with the Algorithm for
providing for description of idiosyncratic dialects (Corder, 1981) to identify the sources
of these errors.
2.4. Research Gap
In the majority of the studies above, the data was collected in a cross-sectional time span,
i.e. at a single point of time, and in a specific sampling manner, i.e. only one sample of
language use is solicited from a limited number of learners. Therefore, the deviations
extracted from the target populations could be either mistakes (which are just incidental)
or errors (which are systematic). In addition, all the researchers did not employ any
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
26/66
interviews to identify whether these deviations were just the learners slip-of-the-pen or
their inadequate competence of the target language. Consequently, their discussion
appeared to be less valid.
During the process of error identification, most of the researchers paid due
attention to the errors of accuracy (form) rather than those of fluency (meanings).
Therefore, the errors of ideas and idea organizations have not been discussed.
Up to the present, there has been no EA study in which a comparison of the
writing errors by learners of different levels is clearly made. Additionally, EA research in
the context of Vietnam, as mentioned above, is still something new.
All such urge the need for this current study to fulfill these gaps.
3. Methods of the study
3.1. Steps in Error AnalysisThere existed many studies which focused on error analysis before the 1970s. Yet such
traditional analyses, as mentioned above, were not equipped with a rigorous methodology
and a theoretical framework (Ellis, 1994). It was not until 1974 that Corder aligned a
working procedure that soon received the noticeable popularity:
Collection of sample of learner language Identification of Errors Description of
Errors Explanation of Errors Evaluation of Errors
Many error analysis studies employed this process to address their researchquestions. Yet most of them tried to exclude step 5 evaluation of errors because it
proved to be rather demanding for a researcher to do too many things at a time.
Additionally, this step is often handled as a separated issue, which employs its own
method of enquiry.
The present study also employed Corders procedure, excluding the final step
Evaluation of Errors.
3.2. Collection of sample of learner language
To ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected, a researcher should consider as
many factors involved as he can. The major ones can include: the size of sample, the
requirements of the tasks, the language competence/performance of the learners, the
manner of the data-collection process and the time span over which the data is collected.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
27/66
The size of the sample: Obviously the more samples a researcher gains the more
valid and reliable his sampling can be, and therefore his findings and
interpretation can probably be scientifically sound. However, a massive sample is
a major undertaking and it is not surprising that many researchers turn to specific
or incidental samples (Ellis, 1994). The specific sample refers to the sampling in
which only one sample of language use is solicited from a limited number of
learners, meanwhile, the incidental one involves only one sample of language use
taken from one single learner.
The requirements of the task and learners language competence/performance:
Ellis (1994) argued that the error making of the learners can be influenced by a
variety of factors. These factors can be categorized into those originate from the
requirements of the task such as: medium of the language outcome (oral or
written), the genre of these medium (written report, narrative, forum or formal
presentation), and the topic of the task and those from the learners: language
competence level, their first language, and their learning experience and
strategies.
Manner of the data-collection process: The manner in which the data is collected
is important. Many researchers prefer natural language use to elicited one (Corder
(1973); Burt, Dulay, and Hernandez (1973); Lococo (1976)). However, learnersdo not often produce such data. Thus, the elicitation should be employed properly
to mitigate the unreal or contextualized language use of the learners.
Time span of data collection: The majority of the EA studies employ the cross-
sectional manner, i.e. the data is collected at a single point of time. Some gather
the data longitudinally (over a period of time) (Ellis, 1994).
The data for this research would be collected from a specific sample, out of the
learner written works under the elicitation manner, and at a single point of time.
Sample: The subject matter of this current study is the error analysis of learner written
production, and therefore the sample would be errors in their written works. The errors
hereby refer to competence errors (due to L1 transfer, intra-lingual and unique). The
sampling is a specific one which involves one sample of language use (written) from a
limited number of learners (30).
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
28/66
Population: data will be extracted from 30 written works, including 10 by the first-
year students, 10 by the second-year students, and another 10 by the third-year students in
Vietnam. Their first language is Vietnamese and since their major is English their level is
supposed to be intermediate. Additionally, according to their results of the Multiple
Intelligence Test, they all possess a good linguistic and musical intelligence. This can
help deduce their preference for learning styles and strategies. However, their
competence can differ since the time they have been exposed to the English language is
varied. In this study, other dependent variables such as family, educational background,
personal effort, and innate linguistic capacity are excluded from the discussion of
findings.
Informed Consent: All the students are informed about the purpose of the data
collection and this process is conducted in the manner of high confidentiality. Also theyare asked for permission to join an informal interview when needed.
Collection of sample: Data are collected randomly from their home assignment. All
the tasks require the students to write a piece of academic writing on familiar topics
which they have already learnt in the reading, listening and speaking skills and/or
brainstormed with partners in the class. The norm of homework and brainstormed writing
can help the learners to produce spontaneous language, and then mitigate the negative
effects of elicitation technique in data collection. The sample was all gathered in a cross-
sectional manner.
3.3. Identification and description of errors
Many scholars agree on the definition of an error as the deviation from the norms of the
target language. Yet the matter is whether this error is overt (form) or covert (meaning)
(Corder, 1971), and in other words, whether this error is in terms of correctness or in
terms of appropriateness (Thomas, 1983). To counteract this problem, Corder (1981)
created an algorithm for providing for description of idiosyncratic dialects:
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
29/66
For the current research, these two steps would be conducted as follows:
Errors vs. Mistakes: All the deviations from the norms of target language are
highlighted and then delivered to the authors who would, in a comfortable setting, correct
these deviations by themselves. Those deviations that the students can correct themselves
are put as mistakes and the rest as errors. This current paper focuses on the errors only.
Correctness (overt) and appropriateness (covert): Corders algorithm and an
informal interview (for authoritative interpretation) are employed to determine whether
the errors are overt or covert.
All the errors are then ranked in order of their frequency and compared between
two categories: overt vs. covert and among the three different groups: the first-year,
second-year, and third-year students. The findings would help learn the common errors in
the written works of the students.
3.4. Explanation of errorsAnother informal interview is conducted to allocate these errors into three groups of L1
transfer, intra-lingual, and unique ones. A comparison among these three groups is also
done and so is for the students from the three generations above.
4. Results and Data Analysis
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
30/66
4.1. Frequency of Errors in the learner written work
In the corpus of 30 pieces of
learner written work, there are
477 deviations, which include
199 by the first-year students,
112 by the second-years, and
166 by the third-years. It should
be noted that the two former
groups were required to produce descriptive (giving facts) prose, meanwhile the latter
were asked to deliver an argumentative (giving opinions) one. According to Gabi Duigu
(2006), an argumentative essay tends to be more challenging than a descriptive one since
it requires a higher reasoning ability, based on the classification in Blooms Taxonomy(1956). It can partly explain the sudden increase in the number of deviations made by the
third-year students.
The frequency of the deviations in these learners compositions is on average 15.9
items per paper. This figure is higher than that (8.02) in the study by Lee (2008), whose
target population was, in terms of English competence, ranked at the intermediate or
advanced level.
However, it is much
lower than that (20)
in Duskovas
research (1969) and
that (36.9) in
Huangs (2007).
As mentioned in the method of the study, all the deviations from the norm of
target language would be highlighted, and then delivered to the authors (learners) for self-
correction. To those deviations which were corrected by their authors, they would be
regarded as mistakes. The rest would be categorized as errors and included for later
discussion. After this self-correction, 20, 18, and 75 items were properly addressed by the
first-year, second-year, and third-year students respectively. Therefore, the remaining
ones are errors, which are presented in the chart 2.
199
112
166
0
50100
150
200
1st-year 2nd-
year
3rd-year
No of Deviations
179
94 91
0
50
100
150
200
1st-year 2nd-year 3rd-year
No of Errors
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
31/66
It can be seen from the chart 2 that the number of errors drops considerably from
179 items by the first-year students to 91 by the third-years and that about half of the
deviations made by the third-year students are just the slip-of-the-pen or mistakes,
which could be corrected by themselves. Accordingly, the frequency of errors in their
writing is now just 12.1 per paper. This very figure may suggest some progress in the
process of teaching and learning writing skills in the studied context.
4.2. Common types of errors in the learner written work
Unlike the previous research which put primary error analysis on the accuracy (form:
grammar and vocabulary) of the learner language competence and performance, the
current study purported to focus both on errors of accuracy and fluency (meaning/ideas).
After the stage of error identification (Corder, 1974), all the errors in the 30 corpus were
accumulated into the table below:
Flu
ency(Meaning/Idea)Errors Topic
Coverage
13 10 pieces: not write about the required topic
3 pieces: too broad
Main Idea
Coverage
19 10 pieces: supporting ideas do not support the main idea
9 pieces: the main ideas are too broad/too narrow
Logical
Fallacy
64 Overgeneralization, Extremist, illogical causal reasoning
(A B), and misconception
IdeaStructure
6 Overlapping and mixed order of ideas
Accuracy(Grammar
andVocabulary)Errors
Grammar-relatedErrors Noun-
related
36 Countable/Uncountable, singular/plural, determiners,
article, post-modifiersVerb-
related
39 Verb tense, verb form, subject-verb agreement, verb
transitivity, phrasal verb, etc.Adjective-
related
9 Comparatives, V-ed Adjectives vs. V-ing Adjectives,
Adjective complementsPrep.-
related
13 Preposition of time and place
Connector-
related
10 Causal connectors: so, because
Contrastive connectors: howeverClause-
related
12 Nominal and Adverbial clauses
Spelling 19 Besides (as a preposition instead of as a connector)
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
32/66
Word-relatedErrors Non-
existent
words
2 Fastly
Word
choice
108 E.g: Her face is warm-hearted
A man who appearedforwardmeOveruse of
very
18 Normally before adjectives: I am very lucky, he is very
caring, my father is very thoughtful as in spoken
language.Among all the fluency-related errors, logical fallacy is the most common one,
which is followed by main idea and topic coverage. It is shown that the poor organization
of ideas is rather trivial in comparison with other kinds of errors. Since there has yet been
no documented research which aim to address this aspect of the written errors, the
findings here can be valuable for the later studies of similar topics.
For the grammatical errors, verb- and noun-related ones are prominent with 75
items recorded. Such other errors as adjective-, preposition-, connector-, or even clause-
related ones range slightly from 9 to 13 items. This finding is rather similar to that of Kim
(1987), Huang (2001), and Darus (2009).
Noticeably, the errors related to the vocabulary far outnumber grammatical ones.
Additionally, the wrong word choice is the most serious one with 108 items recorded.
This number is much higher than that of verb-, noun-, and even adjective-related errorscombined together. Thus, this finding much differs from that of Huang (2001) and Darus
(2009). The percentage of this kind of errors out of the total number in this current study
proves to be significant 29.7%, far beyond that (23.1%) in Duskova (1969) and that
(16%) in Lee (2008). It is also worth noting that many students, especially the first-years
tend to overuse the degree word very in front adjectives. This habit is often seen in
their spoken language. That may be a negative transfer from their oral manner to the
written one.
To conclude, the most common errors in the written work of the target population
are wrong word choice (29.7%), verb- and noun-related ones (20.6%), and logical fallacy
(17.6%).
4.3. Major causes of the errors in the learner written work
4.3.1. Causes of fluency-related errors (ideas and idea organization)
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
33/66
Topic/Main Idea Coverage:
The writing task for the first-year students was to write about the topic: who has the
most influence on you? Only after they were asked to analyze the topic, did they realize
that they had not covered it. They all tried to describe about the appearance, personalities,
and typical activities of a person who they thought to have the most influence on them,
instead of present how his/her appearance, personalities, and/or typical activities, directly
or indirectly, influenced them. When I read the question, I immediately thought of my
mother. And then I wrote about her, everything related to her, but not how she influenced
my way of thinking or my lifestyle. Maybe I should be more critical next time when I read
the topic requirement (G1-S2). During this semester, we spent some time on
descriptive writing, especially description of people. So I thought this topic asked me to
describe someone important to me (G1-S7). This off-topic error proves to be due tothe fact that the students did not have the habit of analyzing the topic. Therefore, they
tended to write what they had on their mind rather than what they were required to do.
This error can be attributed to their learning habit, which can be put into the unique
sources in the classification of Abbott (1980).
The third-year students were asked to write about the topic: water pollution.
However, one student (G3-S6) expanded the topic to write about the pollution in general.
I didnt recognize as I was writing this piece. Actually at first I thought of water
pollution. However, the more I wrote, the more I was drifted to the pollution in general.
Even after finishing the writing, I was still happy about it. Meanwhile, two other ones
(G3-S3, G3-S9) attempted to narrow down the topic, yet just to water pollution in our
country. In the interview, they were completely unaware that their narrowed-down topic
was still too broad to cover in a paragraph. In consulting with their other pieces of
writing, it was revealed that these two students tended to discuss big issues with general
ideas, instead of a concrete matter with specific and evidential arguments. This error is
rather common in the students as well. It can be attributed to their way of thinking,
which, in turn, is personally assumed to be caused by learning strategies in the past. Then
it belongs to the unique sources of errors.
Being unable to recognize the focus of topic and to consistently develop or
support it are also the same reasons for poor main idea coverage. I am not used to using
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
34/66
a topic sentence in my writing, even in Vietnamese. I usually write to express something
rather than to prove something. At the secondary school, I got to descriptive writing, for
example of a person, thing or event. Up to the high school, I just expressed what I felt
about the literature works. Never before have I learnt to argue for one opinion (G2-S7).
Logical Fallacy:
It is rather common to see, in the students writing, such sentences as: In our lives, there
is always someone who has strong influence on us (extremist), As a soldier, he never
forgives any mistakes without confessing (overgeneralization: not all soldiers have the
similar character), smoking results in environmental pollution at the alarming level
(exaggeration), or he doesnt tolerate others mistake because he is thoughtful (illogical
A B, and misconception of thoughtful). When asked to correct these sentences, the
majority of the students draw their attention to the grammar or vocabulary deviations
rather then logical ones. This suggests that they could not recognize this kind of fallacy.
It was not until the researcher explained the illogical reasoning in those sentences that
they started to be aware of this matter. Whenever the teacher asks us to correct the
mistakes in writing, either of our own or of our friends, we just focus on the mistakes in
grammar, vocabulary sentence. Rarely do we focus on ideas, let alone logical fallacy of
ideas. If we are required to do, we can.probably not do because we often think in the
same way, and then find nothing wrong with that (G3-S10). This sincere sharing urgesthe need for raising awareness of and teaching critical thinking to the students.
Otherwise, this kind of errors would be systematic.
In summary, the main reason for fluency-related errors is the unique sources. To
be specific, they are the poor critical thinking, poor recognition of topic focus, and poor
arguing strategies among the students in the target population.
4.3.2. Causes of Grammar-related Errors
The interview note-takings indicated that most of the grammatical errors result from the
distinctive features of the target language, which much differs from the students mother
tongue Vietnamese. I find it hard to make difference between countable and
uncountable nouns. Even uncountable nouns can be turned into countable in some
context. Also it is difficult to learn how to form a plural noun as well. All these are not
the case in Vietnamese (G1-S8). In Vietnamese, I dont have to mind about the verb
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
35/66
tense or subject-verb agreement because one Vietnamese verb can go with any subjects,
with any tenses without any change in its form (G2-S5). Thus, the primary cause of the
errors related to grammar is the internal characteristics of English language, which are
unfamiliar to Vietnamese students. It can be categorized under the intra-lingual sources in
the classification of Abbott (1980).
4.3.3. Causes of word-related errors
The most popular errors in the vocabulary are the wrong word choice. Humorous
mood, Her eyes are the things I miss [remember/am impressed] the most about her,
do the morning exercise on the terrace [in the garden] are just few to name. To learn
the reason behind this improper use of vocabulary, an authoritative interpretation was
conducted, in which the authors of such errors were asked to explain in Vietnamese what
they intended to convey in those situations. After that, the right words were chosen andreplaced the wrong one for later comparison. In the follow-up discussion, some students
admitted: I often use a Vietnamese-English dictionary to find the equivalent words or
phrases to convey what I want to say (G1-S4) or I have a sentence in Vietnamese and
then translate it word by word into English (G2-S9). They were not aware that some
words could be equivalent in terms of meanings, but they could not collocate with their
surroundings words/phrases; and that translation proved to be a difficult language skill,
which could not be done by coding words/phrases one by one. Also they did not learn
that their thinking in their mother tongue was highly developed, then they could not
employ their not-yet-mastered English competence to rigidly convey it. This error is one
of negative transfer of their first language into the process of second language
acquisition.
4.3.4. Summary of major causes of the learner common errors
The majority of fluency-related errors are caused by the unique sources, specifically the
students insufficient critical thinking and arguing manner. Meanwhile, the prominent
reason for grammatical ones is intra-lingual sources, i.e. the distinctive features of
English language that differ from the learners L1, and for lexical ones is inter-lingual
sources the negative L1 transfer.
4.4. Differences in the findings of the three studied groups
4.4.1. Frequency of Errors
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
36/66
Although chart 1 presents a rather high number of deviations made by the third-year
students, the many of them are of mistakes, instead of errors. Their errors are just 91
items, which are attributed to systematically inadequate competence of these students in
some particular language patterns. Accordingly, the number of errors reduces from the
first generation to the third one. It should be also noted that the errors by the second-year
students fall half of those by the first year, meanwhile the number decreases very slightly
from the second group to the third group. It is assumed that the longer time they have
learnt English language, the fewer errors they have made in their writing performance. In
other words, they have made progress along with time of learning. Additionally, the
slight decrease in the number of errors by the second year students to that by third year
students could be attributed to the switch of task requirements. The writing task assigned
for the third year group proved to be more difficult than that of the second year.4.4.2. The common errors
The rate of each kind of error made by the three groups of students would be presented in
the pie charts below:
It can be apparent from the first chart
that the most popular errors among
the 10 first year students are of
vocabulary, which takes up more
than half of all the errors recorded.
Those among the second year group
are of grammar (42%), and those among the third-years are of fluency (50%). It is worth
noting that while the number of errors related to grammar and vocabulary competence
tends, in general, to be down from the first-years to the third-years, that of fluency-related
Errors by 1st-year students20%
29%
51%
Fluency Errors
Grammar Errors
Vocabulary Errors
Errors by 2nd-year students
29%
42%
29%Fluency Errors
Grammar Errors
Vocabulary Error s
Errors by 3rd-year students
50%
18%
32% Fluency Errors
Gramm ar Errors
Vocabulary Errors
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
37/66
ones increases considerably from 20% by the first-year group, 29% by the second-years,
and 50% by the third-years, respectively. Therefore, it can be claimed that the higher
level the students have achieved, the fewer accuracy errors that they tend to commit.
Meanwhile, they make more errors in terms of ideas, logic of ideas, and organization of
ideas.
4.4.3. The major causes
As discussed in 4.4.2, the first year students make the majority of their errors in
vocabulary, especially in word choice and word concept. When asked about the reasons
behind this fact, 6 out of 10 attributed to the habit of translating from Vietnamese into
English (with or without dictionary use). Therefore, the major cause for their errors is of
inter-lingual and unique factors, i.e. either the negative L1 transfer or learning strategies
are to blame for.Meanwhile, the second year group tends to make more errors in grammar and
most of them regard the distinctive features of English language, which much differ from
those of Vietnam as the main reason. And the third-years who make many errors in ideas,
logic of ideas, and organization of ideas, claim that the unique factors such as poor
critical thinking, poor background knowledge and poor topic analysis are the primary
cause of their errors.
In brief, the three groups are rather different in terms of their frequency of making
errors, common errors and major reasons. The higher level they reach, the fewer errors in
accuracy and the more errors in fluency they have.
5. Conclusion
5.1. Summary
With the aim to learn the frequency, common types and major causes of errors in the
written work by 30 students, the researcher can conclude:
(1) The frequency of errors made by these 30 students is 12.1 per paper. This figure is
much lower than those of other similar studies. Additionally, the frequency decreases in
the students of older generations, which may infer the gradual progress of HULIS writing
courses.
(2) The most popular errors are word choice (29.7%), verb- and noun-related ones
(20.6%), and logical fallacy (17.6%), respectively. The higher year the students are, the
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
38/66
fewer verb- and noun-related errors they have, whereas the more logical fallacy they
make. It can be claimed that they gradually master the grammar and vocabulary
competence, and now they focus more on idea development.
(3) For different types of errors, there is a different main cause. While such unique
factors as poor critical thinking and poor topic analysis are attributed to logical fallacy,
intra-lingual factors (distinctive features of English language) lead to improper use of
grammar and negative L1 transfer to wrong use of vocabulary.
5.2. Limitation
The current study has admitted some limitations, which are hoped to be addressed by
later studies:
(1) The number of sample is limited (30 pieces of writing)(2) The sample was collected at a single point of time, when some students, in high
possibility, could not perform their task well due to objective factors
(3) The language was extracted on elicitation, thus it was not really natural
(4) The study did not touch upon the pedagogical implications, which help mitigate the
error commission among students
References:
Abbott, G. 1980. Toward a more rigorous analysis of foreign language errors.
International Review of Applied Linguistics 18. 121-34.
Burt, M., H. Dulay, and E. Hernandez. 1973.Bilingual Syntax Measure. Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich. New York.
Corder, S. P. 1967. The significance of learners errors.International Reviews of Applied
Linguistics 5. 161-9.
Corder, S. P. 1971. Idiosyncratic dialects and error analysis.International Reviews of
Applied Linguistics 9. 149-59.
Corder, S. P. 1973. The elicitation of interlanguage. In Svartvid, J. ed.Errata: Papers in
Error Analysis. CWK Gleerup. Lund. New York.
Corder, S. P. 1974. Error Analysis. In Ellen, J. and S. P. Corder. ed. The Edinburgh
Course in Applied Linguistics, Vol.3. Oxford University Press. London.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
39/66
Corder, S. P. 1981.Error Analysis and Interlanguage. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Doff, A. 1988. Teaching English: Trainers Handbook. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge.
Dulay, H. and M. Burt. 1974. Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly 8. 129-36.
Ellis, R. 1994. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press.
London.
French, F. 1949. Common Errors in English. Oxford University Press. London.
George, H. 1972. Common Errors in Language Learning: Insights from English.
Newbury House. Rowley. Mass.
Hoang, T. H. 2001. Common Mistakes in Written Works of English Learners. VNU
Publishing House. Hanoi.Lee, W. 1957. The linguistic context of language learning.English Language Teaching
Journal11. 77-85.
Lennon, P. 1991. Error: some problems of definition, identification, and distinction.
Applied Linguistics 12. 180-95.
Lococo, V. 1976. A comparison of three methods for the collection of L2 data: free
composition, translation and picture description. Working Papers on
Bilingualism 8. 59-86.
Lott, D. 1983. Analyzing and counteracting interference errors.English Language
Teaching Journal37. 256-61.
Richard, J. 1971. Error analysis and second language strategies. Language Sciences 17.
12-22.
Schachter, J. and M. Celce-Murcia. 1977. Some reservations concerning error analysis.
TESOL Quarterly 11. 441-51.
Thomas, J. 1983. Cross-cultural pragmatic failure.Applied Linguistics 4. 91-112.
BCKH cp t BM, 2010Lc nh QuangT GHP, Khoa TASPHNN, HQG H niEmail: lucquang@gmail.com
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
40/66
Literature Teaching in ELT: Some General Background IssuesLiterature Teaching in ELT: Some General Background Issues
Luc Dinh Quang(5 April, 2010)
INTRODUCTION
Literature has recently lost much of its long-standing prominence in English languageteaching. This phenomenon is often regarded a result of the current social trends andspecifically the advent of communicative language teaching (CLT), both of which seemto be driven more toward international communication, material advantages andeconomic benefits than toward such luxuries usually associated with literary study assensitivity development or aesthetic enrichment.
However, it may be true that the ways literature was traditionally approached and taught(mostly by means of translation, or philological and rhetorical analysis of literary texts)have become inappropriate in contemporary ELT methodology and therefore needreconsidering.
It is important to make a distinction here between literature as a subject and literature as adiscipline because, despite the fact that the former concept is more suitable for ELTcontexts, often it is confused with the latter, which makes it difficult for teachers andcurriculum developers to set appropriate goals. According to Widdowson (1975:2),subjects must be defined at different educational levels in terms of pedagogic objectives,whereas disciplines are defined in terms of theoretical requirements.
For certain ELT situations where literature is not a discipline but nevertheless acompulsory subject, such as in the case of Hanoi National University, Vietnam (HNUV),to include or not to include literature in the curriculum is not a question. Rather, thequestion is how to make such an inclusion an integrated component of the curriculum interms of teaching methodology as well as learning experiences.
However, my purpose in this article is just to draw a background of literature andliterature teaching: the nature of literature, language in literature, deviance, literarycompetence, and literary communication. Also, I will sketch the history of literatureteaching from several curriculum models, and specifically recent approaches to literaturein ELT.
My next article on the topic will most probably include a critical description of literatureteaching at HNUV from the time I was a student there (1982-1987) up to date, plus aproposal for an alternative curriculum of literature at the above-mentioned institution.
LITERATURE AND LITERATURE TEACHING
I. A Glimpse of Literature
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
41/66
This part includes a definitionofliterature and a short discussion on a few backgroundissues such as literary language, deviance,literary competence and literarycommunication.
1. A definition of literature
In a very broad sense, literature can be defined as a form of verbal art, which hasdifferent modes of expression. Because it is verbal, its flesh and bones come fromlanguage. As an art, it is associated with human imagination which recreates or extendsreality to produce one that is often a sharp contrast-reflection of the original. It canexpress itself in different modes and genres: written or oral, prose or poetry and so on.
2. Literary language
What literature is in fact relates closely to what language is generally considered literaryand what language is not. Again, this depends on who is asking the question and for whatpurpose of inquiry. For the layman or those who find it convenient to wear his shoes,there is the tendency to associate literature with the kind of language often found in the
classics: Shakespeare and Milton in England, Montaigne and Racine in France, Dante inItaly, the I Ching in China, Nguyen Du in Vietnam et cetera. For those who viewliterature from a purely linguistic perspective, there is no literary language.
There is no such thing as a literary language. That is to say, there are no items ofmodern English vocabulary or grammar that are exclusively literary. It is impossibleto identify or isolate any linguistic feature that will automatically confer a literarystatus on a text. In short, the concept of literary language is a chimera.
(Simpson 1997:7)
We stated at the outset that it is difficult to make a linguistic distinction betweenliterature and the rest of language. By this we mean that, despite a widespreadassumption to the contrary, we know of no particular linguistic feature or set oflinguistic features which are found in literature but not other kinds of text.
(Short & Candlin 1986:107).
In a more neutral tone, Lott (1988:4), while admitting that the trend of opinion today isthat there is no definable language of literature..., states:
There have been some languages of literature which can be identified undeniablyas such. Such languages of literature maintain the use of lexical and/or syntacticalfeatures, even phonological features which can never have had any currency in thenormal language of everyday life.
While relating literature to English language teaching, Brumfit (1989:25) offers a
definition that sounds pretty loose: The term literature in educational discourse impliesrecognition of the fact that a certain body of texts are so defined by most people in theWestern educational tradition. The loose piece in this statement, apparently, involvessuch questions as whose recognition? What is that recognition based on?Are thosepeople teachers, linguists, educational policily makers or curriculum designers?
3. Deviance or creativity - the nature of language in literature
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
42/66
Divided as they are about whether or not there is a literary language, opinions about thisissue seem to converge on the point that what marks a language use off as literature is itsmetaphoricality, which may be achieved by breaking the conventions of grammar,vocabulary, phonology, semantics, discourse, or even of logic. When contrasted to thenormal uses of language this is often referred to as deviance ordeviation. Indeed
deviance is the most outstanding feature of language in literature and at the same time animportant literary device. By nature, a writer or poet is a reformist or some kind of rebelwho sees the world somewhat differently from others. In trying to recreate reality s/hewill understandably want to use language differently from other people, or, in otherwords, to build deep structures orpatterns for her/his messages that cannot be verbalizedconventionally. For many different reasons this phenomenon should be tolerated:
Ambiguity, polysemy, opaqueness, the violation of grammatical and logicalsequences, reciprocal incomprehensions, the capacity to lie - these are notpathologies of language but the roots of its genius. Without them the individual andthe species would have withered.
(Steiner cited in Mittins 1991:55).
Below are two examples of literary texts with a focus on different degrees of linguisticdeviance.
(1)
When people arent asking questionsThey are making suggestions.
And when theyre not doing one of thoseTheyre either looking over your shoulders or
Stepping on your toes.And then as if that werent enough to annoy you
They employ you...
(extracted from More About People by Ogden Nash, in Sparke & MacKowen 1970:168)
(2)
anyone lived in a pretty how town(with up so floating many bells down)
spring summer autumn winterhe sang his didnt he danced his did
women and men (both little and small)cared for anyone not at all
the sowed their isnt they reaped their samesun moon stars rain
(ee cummingsAnyone Lived In A Pretty How Town in Widdowson 1975:29-30)
It is obvious that the language in the first extract is quite normal while that in the secondis so deviant that it seems almost mystic.
4. Literary competence
Naturally, in order to comprehend literary texts it is necessary that readers develop acertain faculty, which is defined by Brumfit (1989:27) as follows.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
43/66
Literary competence, then, involves a recognition that language can be used in adeliberately irresponsible way [of course from the linguists point of view] to createmetaphorical meanings that illuminate our self-awareness. It involves a reasonablysophisticated knowledge of the particular kind of language employed in a given text,and an awareness of particular literary styles and conventions.
Thus, literary competence involves both a linguistic competence (which can be seen as ananalogy to that in the communicative competence framework by Canale & Swain,1980),and a knowledge of literature itself. As pointed out by Hasan (1985:104), literarycompetence does not result directly from linguistic competence or only from exposure toliterature, but rather from explicit and systematicstudies of literature. Therefore, literarycompetence should be understood not only as the ability to develop an initial preferencefor or opinion about a work of literature, but also one that helps the reader tosystematically analyze such an attitude.
5. Literary communication
As a communicative resource and an art, literature has such advantages as universality,
non-triviality, personal relevance, variety, interest, economy and suggestive power, andambiguity (please refer to Maley 1989:12 for an explanatory account of theseadvantages). Then what is the difference between literary communication and normalverbal communication?
In fact, what enables people to comprehend and appreciate literature regardless of time isits nature of communication. As put by Widdowson (1975:54):
It is of the nature of literary communication to be dissociated from the immediatesocial context. Literary discourse is independent of normal interaction, has no linkswith any preceding discourse and anticipates no subsequent activity either verbal orotherwise... It is a self-contained whole, interpretable internally, as it were, as a self-contained unit of communication, and in suspense from the immediate reality of
social life.
For example, people are often said to escape from their real life to live temporarily in theworld of literature, be it Baudelaires or Tolstoys, so self-contained and satisfying as it isin its own right. Again, if normal discourse always happens in a definable context ofsituation and follows certain rules, literary discourse is deviant in the sense that it doesnot do so. Therefore, as suggested by Widdowson (1975:47), for a language use to beliterature it must be deviant as discourse, though not necessarily so as text.
II. Literature and Education - A Historical Background
From a historical perspective, literature has always played an important educational role
in human life, even since there were no schools. In tribal communities, knowledge andexperience were passed from generation to generation through folk songs and stories.History, ethics, sciences, and entertainment used to take literature as the means ofexpression. Folklore singers and storytellers brought literature from place to place withpride. In old Chinese courts writers and poets held pivotal positions. Up to the 19 th
century in Vietnam literature was the main vehicle for acquiring a high social status inthe mandarin system. In Europe, up to the same time Latin and Greek writers dominatednot only literary but religious and political circles.
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
44/66
For pre-school children, cradle songs, nursery rhymes, verses and fables are the firstteacher as they contain ethical lessons, easy mathematics, explanations to some naturalphenomena, and names of animals, flowers and trees.
Traditionally, students read, memorized, and translated pieces of literary texts as a meansof learning their mother tongue or a foreign language, or acquiring certain classical
values, be they aesthetic, moral, political or religious. By the end of the 19 th centuryliterature began to be taught as a subject in European schools, based on literary historyand philology. In the 20-s and 30-s of this century new waves of analytic criticismoriginated in the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Britain, and America, and later ofpsychological criticism derived from Freud and Jung, brought different dimensions intothe literature curriculum.
III. The Literature Curriculum
The three most important curriculum models in literature teaching history have been:imitative, analytic andgenerative (Husen & Postlethwaite 1985:3118-3120).
1. The imitative modelThis is the oldest literature curriculum which existed at the time when Latin and Greekwere the main languages taught in Western schools. It is based on the assumption thatliterature forms an intellectual heritage that should be transmitted to the students intact.With this curriculum, students have to memorize and imitate classical models. The mainaim of the imitative curriculum is often to expand nationalism and lofty idealistic ideas.The selection of curricular content, then, depends largely on the existing ideological andpolitical system within which the school operates.
2. The analytic model
This curriculum, based on the works of literary critics and aestheticians, can be seen as a
semi-scientific approach to literature teaching as it provides the students with a set oftools to analyze literary texts. The main point of the analytic theory is that literature cannot be taught but only criticism can. So the students are taught in the first place logicaldiscourse and theoretical structures of linguistics and rhetoric, and then apply suchknowledge to the analysis of literary works. So trained, the students may later becomeliterary critics, or political and cultural ones.
This approach to literature teaching as a result develops students critical thinking skillsand their abilities to comprehend, analyze and respond to literary works.
It is obvious that analytic curriculum developers of later stages are very interested in thedeep structures of literary works as well as the systemic grammar approach to text
analysis, a bridge to the works of such linguists as Chomsky and Halliday (Lott 1988:1-2). According to Purves (cited in Husen & Postlethwaite 1985:3199), the literary analystof this school would not refer to biographical data about an author, but instead wouldconcentrate on the printed pages for the uncovering of the authors personality,temperament and development as a writer.
3. The generative model
8/9/2019 Ky yeu NCKH 2009-2010 - To GHP
45/66
This type of literature curriculum is derived from Freuds psychoanalytic approach whichholds that humans are like onions: if one keeps peeling layer after layer one should cometo the core of the onion that is the real person or truth. So the students are encouragedwith this curriculum to analyze the psyches of the author and characters, or the responseof critics and readers rather than to use other contextual data (linguistic, biographical or
historical) in order to arrive at an understanding of the literary text. Basically, thisapproach to literature study assumes that the readers individuality and his/her existingknowledge relevant to a work of literature will largely decide its meaning. This approachtherefore is compatible with the cognitive theory and specifically schema theory oflearning.
In general, the generative curriculum of literature emphasizes individual and personalgrowth through working with literary texts rather than the development of critical skills.Lessons according to this approach would aim at helping i