交际教学法的背景论交际教学法在中国外语教学背景下的实施障碍以及应对策略

交际教学法的背景论交际教学法在中国外语教学背景下的实施障碍以及应对策略 ：H319.3 ：A Abstract: Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has made a great contribution to foreign language teaching and this point has received acknowledgement with unanimity. However, for this or that reason, this approach cannot be effectively adopted among the Chinese EFL teachers. Aiming at addressing this issue, this paper will analyse the obstacles to adopting CLT in China and propose some remendations for the teaching methodology in Second Language Acquisition (SLA). This article will expand from three aspects. The first section briefly reviews the literature of CLT. Following this, the second section analyses the obstacles to adopting CLT, including the Chinese students cognitive modes , cultural ideology, the washback effect of language testing and the classroom teaching. Finally, the third section provides some remendations for the future English teaching. Key words: CLT ; obstacles; cognitive modes; cultural ideology; language testing；washback effect；SLA; remendations 摘要：交际教学法为外语教学做出了巨大贡献，这一点在中国已得到普遍认可， 但是由于种种原因， 这一方法并没有被广大语言教师所采用。 针对这一问题， 本文将分析交际法未被广大外语教师采用的原因， 同时对目前二语习得教学法提出一些解决措施。 本文将从三部分展开。 第一部分简要回顾交际法的概念以及实施原则； 第二部分探讨了在中国教育背景下实施交际法的障碍， 主要源于中国学生的认知模式，文化 _， 语言测试的后位效应，以及课堂组织模式；第三部分提出在交际法的理论框架下，外语教学实施应该采取的一些教学措施。 关键词：交际教学法 ；交际教学的障碍； 认知模式；文化 _； 语言测试； 后位效应; 二语习得；教学措施 Part One: An Introduction to Communicative Language Teaching 1.1 Historical origins of CLT The origins of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) can date back to the late 1960s, during which British language teaching was prepared for a paradigm shift ( Richards & Rodgers, 2000). In particular, during the 1970s, a new view of language began to emerge. Language was seen as a system for the expression of meaning, rather than a system of abstract syntactic rules ( Nunan, xx: p9 ), which may be opposed to Chomoskys the view of transformational linguistics. In this theoretical context, language educators began to question whether they were teaching to meet the goal in the right way. Some linguists observed that language learners were able to produce sentences aurately in a class, but they could not use them appropriately when genuinely municating outside of the classroom. Others argued that being able to municate with others may require more than mastering linguistic structures. As has been suggested by Widdowson (1978), students may know many rules of organizing the sentences, but they cannot use the language. In this sense, language teaching is not only to teach our students a set of rules to master and a large vocabulary to memorize. On the contrary, students may require proficiency in municative petence advanced by Hymes (1971). For this, such observations contributed to a shift in the field of Second