汉译英上：Problems of taking a lexical approach
汉译英上：Problems of taking a lexical approach
原文：Problems of taking a lexical approach
PROBLEM 1:CORPORA AND TEACHING ‘REAL’ ENGLISH
Real English,corpora,and ‘learner overload’
The case of you must be joking discussed previously illustrated that corpus data requires adjustment before it can be allowed to serve pedagogical ends:for instance,untypical or culturally inappropriate items will need to be removed from the handout which is given to the learners.However,it is likely that further adjustments will still be required,due to teachability and learnability factors:that is,since anecdotal evidence (and common sense) suggests there is a limit to the number of items learners can learn at any one time (i.e.in a single lesson),including every lexical variant at every opportunity will complicate the issue unnecessarily.Learners will be overwhelmed and will fail to learn any—or at least learn fewer—lexical strings less well than if they had been presented with a smaller,more manageable list in the first place.So implementing a lexical approach requires a delicate balancing act:on the one hand,the teacher will wish to consult the appropriate corpora to avoid the ersatz English of the textbooks which reflects little of the language’s lexical variations and predominant patterns.On the other hand,however,teachers will be anxious to ensure learners are not “overloaded” with too much lexis which would result from exposing the class to as many lexical strings as the corpus describes (cf.Cook 1998).We should be aware of the dangers of teaching learners unusual or deviant variations when,since we have neither the time (as teachers) or the space (as materials writers) to include more than some variations in our lessons or coursebooks,we should ensure these are the variations which will be most useful to the learners.Hence intuition regarding both linguistic and pedagogical matters needs to be exercised:in addition to asking ourselves whether any of the attested corpus examples are untypical in the skill/genre we are attempting to teach (e.g.academic writing:the research paper),pedagogical judgements such as the accessibility/difficulty/volume of material also require reflection,since,while corpora can tell us much,pedagogical concerns such as these are clearly not addressed by the data (Cook 1998).
翻译无需太精确,但软件翻译就免了,另,corpora在这里可译为“组块”
原文：Problems of taking a lexical approach
PROBLEM 1:CORPORA AND TEACHING ‘REAL’ ENGLISH
Real English,corpora,and ‘learner overload’
The case of you must be joking discussed previously illustrated that corpus data requires adjustment before it can be allowed to serve pedagogical ends:for instance,untypical or culturally inappropriate items will need to be removed from the handout which is given to the learners.However,it is likely that further adjustments will still be required,due to teachability and learnability factors:that is,since anecdotal evidence (and common sense) suggests there is a limit to the number of items learners can learn at any one time (i.e.in a single lesson),including every lexical variant at every opportunity will complicate the issue unnecessarily.Learners will be overwhelmed and will fail to learn any—or at least learn fewer—lexical strings less well than if they had been presented with a smaller,more manageable list in the first place.So implementing a lexical approach requires a delicate balancing act:on the one hand,the teacher will wish to consult the appropriate corpora to avoid the ersatz English of the textbooks which reflects little of the language’s lexical variations and predominant patterns.On the other hand,however,teachers will be anxious to ensure learners are not “overloaded” with too much lexis which would result from exposing the class to as many lexical strings as the corpus describes (cf.Cook 1998).We should be aware of the dangers of teaching learners unusual or deviant variations when,since we have neither the time (as teachers) or the space (as materials writers) to include more than some variations in our lessons or coursebooks,we should ensure these are the variations which will be most useful to the learners.Hence intuition regarding both linguistic and pedagogical matters needs to be exercised:in addition to asking ourselves whether any of the attested corpus examples are untypical in the skill/genre we are attempting to teach (e.g.academic writing:the research paper),pedagogical judgements such as the accessibility/difficulty/volume of material also require reflection,since,while corpora can tell us much,pedagogical concerns such as these are clearly not addressed by the data (Cook 1998).
翻译无需太精确,但软件翻译就免了,另,corpora在这里可译为“组块”
赞 妖精 幼苗
共回答了23个问题采纳率：87% 举报
赫赫,把你的东西翻一遍,发现对英语教育理解了一些,连你另一贴的翻译一起附上,供你参考,frank
词汇方法学（lexical approach）的实施问题
问题一：组块和“真实”英语教学
真实英语,组块,及“学习者超负荷”
你之前开玩笑探讨过的情况表明组块数据在被应用于教育学目的之前需要一些修正：比如非典型的和文化性不适的内容需要在发给学习者之前从讲义内移除.但是,基于可教性和可学性因素,应该还需要做出更多的修正：比如常识告诉我们学习者一次（比如一节课）只能学习有限的东西,包括每个词汇都可能不必要的把事情弄得更复杂.学习者将受到打击且完全无法学会或者至少只能学到很少.
因此实施词汇方法学需要非常精细的平衡控制：一方面,教师需要考虑适当的组块来防止课本里无法反映语言词汇变化和典型模式的“伪英语”；另一方面,教师需要注意不要给学生把一个组块所包含的词汇尽可能多的推到学习者面前,保证学习者没有“超负荷”（cf cook 1998）.我们应当小心介绍非常用语和冷僻用法给学习者,因为在课程里和教材里,我们没有足够时间（像老师）和空间（像教材作者）来涵盖更多的东西,我们必须确保将最有用的东西教给学习者.因此包括语言学和教育学的东西都应该考虑到：此外要问问我们自己是否所选的组块例子是典型的我们想要教的类型（eg 学术写作：研究报告）,教育学修正,比如材料的可接触性/难度/容量都应该被反映到,因此,组块能搞苏我们很多东西,像这些教育学方向的考量并没有被数据覆盖到.（cook 1998）
组块的某些额外局限性
尽管组块不是教育学的万能药（eg.cook,widdonwson）,我并不认为组块本身造成了词汇学方法(lexical approach)的应用问题.其中的主要问题是组块数据是如何被选择和处理的.举一个数据可能被错误使用的例子：这是一个很流行但却是错误的认识,词汇在组块中出现的频率将决定它在我们课程提纲中的优先地位.事实上,我认为学习者的水平越高,也越明显需要除计算出现频率以外更多的东西.尽管willis(1990)地研究证明英语中出现频率最频繁的700个单词构成70%的英语文章,到底应该教些什么所产生的问题也因此产生.根据willis的数据,这是很难处理（or 预测,i am not sure here）的：
700个出现最频繁的词汇覆盖了70%的文章,但是之后覆盖率下降的非常快.接下来的800个词覆盖了6%的文章,再接下来的1000个词则覆盖了4%.所以普通意义的出现频率不是唯一的标准[来确定在教学提纲适合出现的词汇](willis 1990.47)
因此,虽然在我们尝试在课堂上重现真实的英语的努力中不应该忽略出现频率这一因素,很明显在决定教学词汇时,出现频率不应该是唯一的,甚至是原则性的因素.相关的研究包括文本类型（eg,biber etal 1994）以及类型分析（eg bhatia 1993 wwales 1990）,研究表明：举例说一个研究类的文章和一封商业文函所具有的文章结构和词汇表达,两者之间的不同在某种程度上是可以被预测的.因此我们需要时刻牢记学习者到底想要什么和需要什么（cf biber et at1994）:两种情况,一种,在为以英语为教学语言的学校,研究生学前课程学习者需要提高他们的学术写作技巧,另一种,期望了解英语母语的人和他们同事/朋友谈话方法的一个中等普通英语水平的群体；很显然,两种情况下,教学材料的设计者需要考虑到不同的组块.
总的来说,组块不会是教育学问题的“速成解决办法”,但是组块一定毫无疑问的是处于词汇方法的中心地位,教师和教材设计人员需要考虑很多影响组块选择和数据处理的变量.
供参考,frank
词汇方法学（lexical approach）的实施问题
问题一：组块和“真实”英语教学
真实英语,组块,及“学习者超负荷”
你之前开玩笑探讨过的情况表明组块数据在被应用于教育学目的之前需要一些修正：比如非典型的和文化性不适的内容需要在发给学习者之前从讲义内移除.但是,基于可教性和可学性因素,应该还需要做出更多的修正：比如常识告诉我们学习者一次（比如一节课）只能学习有限的东西,包括每个词汇都可能不必要的把事情弄得更复杂.学习者将受到打击且完全无法学会或者至少只能学到很少.
因此实施词汇方法学需要非常精细的平衡控制：一方面,教师需要考虑适当的组块来防止课本里无法反映语言词汇变化和典型模式的“伪英语”；另一方面,教师需要注意不要给学生把一个组块所包含的词汇尽可能多的推到学习者面前,保证学习者没有“超负荷”（cf cook 1998）.我们应当小心介绍非常用语和冷僻用法给学习者,因为在课程里和教材里,我们没有足够时间（像老师）和空间（像教材作者）来涵盖更多的东西,我们必须确保将最有用的东西教给学习者.因此包括语言学和教育学的东西都应该考虑到：此外要问问我们自己是否所选的组块例子是典型的我们想要教的类型（eg 学术写作：研究报告）,教育学修正,比如材料的可接触性/难度/容量都应该被反映到,因此,组块能搞苏我们很多东西,像这些教育学方向的考量并没有被数据覆盖到.（cook 1998）
组块的某些额外局限性
尽管组块不是教育学的万能药（eg.cook,widdonwson）,我并不认为组块本身造成了词汇学方法(lexical approach)的应用问题.其中的主要问题是组块数据是如何被选择和处理的.举一个数据可能被错误使用的例子：这是一个很流行但却是错误的认识,词汇在组块中出现的频率将决定它在我们课程提纲中的优先地位.事实上,我认为学习者的水平越高,也越明显需要除计算出现频率以外更多的东西.尽管willis(1990)地研究证明英语中出现频率最频繁的700个单词构成70%的英语文章,到底应该教些什么所产生的问题也因此产生.根据willis的数据,这是很难处理（or 预测,i am not sure here）的：
700个出现最频繁的词汇覆盖了70%的文章,但是之后覆盖率下降的非常快.接下来的800个词覆盖了6%的文章,再接下来的1000个词则覆盖了4%.所以普通意义的出现频率不是唯一的标准[来确定在教学提纲适合出现的词汇](willis 1990.47)
因此,虽然在我们尝试在课堂上重现真实的英语的努力中不应该忽略出现频率这一因素,很明显在决定教学词汇时,出现频率不应该是唯一的,甚至是原则性的因素.相关的研究包括文本类型（eg,biber etal 1994）以及类型分析（eg bhatia 1993 wwales 1990）,研究表明：举例说一个研究类的文章和一封商业文函所具有的文章结构和词汇表达,两者之间的不同在某种程度上是可以被预测的.因此我们需要时刻牢记学习者到底想要什么和需要什么（cf biber et at1994）:两种情况,一种,在为以英语为教学语言的学校,研究生学前课程学习者需要提高他们的学术写作技巧,另一种,期望了解英语母语的人和他们同事/朋友谈话方法的一个中等普通英语水平的群体；很显然,两种情况下,教学材料的设计者需要考虑到不同的组块.
总的来说,组块不会是教育学问题的“速成解决办法”,但是组块一定毫无疑问的是处于词汇方法的中心地位,教师和教材设计人员需要考虑很多影响组块选择和数据处理的变量.
供参考,frank
1年前
2
可能相似的问题
-
1年前4个回答
-
1年前4个回答
-
1年前1个回答
你能帮帮他们吗