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