Introduction 介绍

 

在交际语言教学重点增加（CLT），交际法教学面临的挑战引起了激烈的争论。其中一个挑战是如何在课堂上操作现实生活中的情况。这一挑战的镜子是如何使教师话语尤其是纠正性反馈在交际课堂真实（Cullen，1998）。然而，这个棘手的问题是不可能得到解决。剩下的问题是找到一个合适的方法来处理它。本文的目的是探讨教师纠正性反馈的交际性。它开始与文献回顾的定义，类型，沟通的价值和挑战的纠正反馈。在实例引出观察详细的分析是在下面的章节中介绍。With the increased focus on communicative language teaching (CLT), the pedagogical challenges of communicative methodologies have aroused a heated debate. One of these challenges is that how to operate real-life situations in classrooms. A mirror of this challenge is how to make teacher talk especially corrective feedback authentic in communicative classrooms (Cullen, 1998). However, this thorny problem is not impossible to be resolved. The remaining issue is to find an appropriate way to cope with it. The aim of the paper is to explore the communicativeness in teacher corrective feedback. It begins with a review of literature arguing the definition, types, communicative values and challenges of corrective feedback. Detailed analysis on the examples eliciting from observations are presented in the following section.  

 

Literature review 文献

 

反馈是语言教学中不可或缺的部分。作为franselow说（1987：267），“教是为了提供反馈信息。反馈正反馈和负反馈的类型。负反馈是反馈的一个重要组成部分，当有问题发生时。许多研究者（哈默，2007；Nunnan 1991）发现大多数学生希望得到纠正时产生的错误。众所周知，教师话语在课堂交际性的判断标准之一（Cullen，1998）。作为一种教师话语，在纠正性反馈是交际性值得被评价为好。Giving feedback is an integral part in language teaching. As Franselow says (1987: 267), ‘to teach is to provide feedback’. There are two types of feedback-positive feedback and negative feedback. Negative feedback is an essential part of feedback, when something goes wrong. Many researchers (Harmer, 2007; Nunnan 1991) found that most students expect to be corrected when they produce mistakes. It is universally acknowledged that teacher talk is one of criterions to judge communicativeness in classroom (Cullen, 1998). As a kind of teacher talk, the communicativeness in corrective feedback is of worth being evaluated as well.  

When right answers are given, teachers have different responses as well. Although most researchers concentrate on corrective feedback, it is also of worth considering positive feedback in language teaching. Teachers often react to students’ right answers with ‘Very good’, ‘ Exactly’, ‘Absolutely’ and so on. These praising positive feedbacks can help students reinforce the given right language points and thus give learners a sense of achievement and make them confident in the following study, which is the vital function of positive feedback (Harmer, 2007).  Negative feedback is a common feedback on students’ performance in language classroom. Harmer (2007) highlights that there are two stages in teacher correction. Teachers should first indicate an error and then help students deal with it. However, he solely emphasizes on teachers’ function in this process without predicting influence on learners. This was developed by Gainer (1989), who defines teacher correction as identifying students’ errors and strengthening linguistic rules in their minds. It can help students produce more accurately. In fact, his research did not mention the situation that teacher corrective feedback may be more or less powerless as repeated errors arise. Then, Allwright and Bailey (1991) notice such limitation and try to avoid using ‘correction’ as a reaction towards learners’ errors, as it means a permanent cure. Instead, he believes that teacher treatment of error facilitates learners’ target language form and function acquisition. After that, Cullen (1998) highlights the communicativeness in teacher response to mistakes. In his paper, teacher correction is seen as a part of teacher talk, which is related closely classroom contexts. Moreover, Samar and  

Shyestefar (2009) clarify that negative feedback helps learners ‘notice the gap between their non-target forms and the target forms’. From their point of view, teacher corrective feedback can also be treated as a way to communicate with learners and ‘bridge the communication breakdown’. Thus, teachers respond not only form but also content errors and this corrective feedback has multiple functions including helping learners’ target language acquisition as well as keeping the flow of communication in class.  As one of the goals of negative feedback is to ‘help learners get closer and closer to target language norm’ (Allwright and Bailey, 1991), teachers should choose the most appropriate correction aspect, moment and methodology in teaching language. When reacting to learners’ erroneous performance, a sequence of factors has to be taken into consideration such as ‘the stage of the lesson, the activity, the type of mistake made and the particular student who is making that mistake’ (Harmer, 2007). For instance, when learners are taking part in an accuracy-oriented activity, teacher can verbally interrupt them once errors arise, which known as ‘teacher intervention’. Also, it is apparent that teacher correction mainly concentrates on linguistic rules such as incorrect verb intense, pronunciation or spelling (Harmer, 2007). By contrast, interruption is not suitable for communicative activities, as teacher intervention will deteriorate one of their characteristics -focusing on fluency. In such circumstances, Lynch suggests that teacher should give them correction as late as possible. In other words, teacher can correct mistakes after either learner’s utterance or the activity. Besides, teachers can be less strict in communicative activities, which means implicit corrections such as reformulation are applied here without interrupting the flow of convention (Hammer, 2007).