Yanhua Xia
School
of Foreign Languages, China West Normal University, Nanchong, China
Abstract—linguistic
theories have greatly influenced language teaching theories in whatever stage
they have been. By reviewing the three main stages of linguistic theories that
have existed until now in the history of linguistics, this article has
generalized the language teaching theories and the classroom characters
resulted from them.
Index
Terms—language
theory, grammar translation method, audio-lingual method, communicative
approach
It’s
universally acknowledged that any new language teaching theory cannot come into
being without the break in linguistic theory first. And any generation of
linguistic theory has brought about new language teaching theory as well. Until
now, the theories of linguistics have mainly experienced three stages:
traditional grammar, structuralism and functionalism. They are closely related
to each other and generated the change of language teaching theories.
I.
TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR
A.
Definition of Traditional Grammar
What
is traditional grammar? This can be a hard question to answer. One opinion
about traditional grammar is that it includes two concepts. One is narrow;
another is broad. ―Narrowly speaking, traditional grammar refers to the grammar
theories originated from ancient Greece and Rome, which became popular in the
end of the 18th century before the birth of historical comparative grammar and
dominated the research of grammar and language teaching for a long time in
Europe. It values the old language model, emphasizes written language, neglect
oral language. It tries to purify language and settle language. So it’s called
prescriptive grammar, which was adopted by most school in their language class.
In this case, it’s called school grammar as well. Broadly speaking, traditional
grammar includes the scholarly traditional grammar that originated from the end
the 19th century as well. Some of this kind of grammar emphasizes the principal
of historical comparative study of language; some emphasizes contemporary
language phenomena. Generally speaking, both of them take the attitude of
descriptivism, trying to describe the change of language and the use of
language objectively.‖
(Yin, 1990, p. 1)
Longman
dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics has given a similar
definition: Traditional grammar is ―a grammar which is usually based on earlier
grammars of Latin or Greek and applied to some other language, often
inappropriately‖.
And it has given an example to illustrate this: ―Some grammarians stated that
English had six CASES because Latin had six cases. These grammarians were often
notional and prescriptive in their approach. Although there has been a trend
towards using grammars which incorporate more modern approached to language
description and language teaching, some schools still use traditional grammars‖.
B.
Grammar Translation Method
The
direct influence language teaching received from traditional grammar theory is
grammar translation method of language teaching. A typical lesson conducted
under the guidance of this method bears the following characters:
(1)
The ultimate purpose of foreign language teaching is to read materials written
by foreign language, such as reading foreign classics, so written language is
emphasized rather than oral language. The goal of foreign language learning is
to translate that foreign language into one’s mother tongue. If a student can
do this, he or she has become successful in foreign language study.
(2)
Because oral language ability is not the goal of this kind of teaching, it
results in many learners who have learnt even more than ten years buy still
couldn’t use it to communicate with native speakers of the language he or she
had learnt.
(3)
Teachers are the absolute authorities in the class. Students are just
absorbers, busy with writing down every detail of the knowledge teachers give
them. The class is always teacher-centered.
(4)
Langue form, i.e. grammar, is emphasized. Students are always encouraged to
grasp this part. In order to make students understand this part clearly,
teachers always use their native languages to conduct the lessons. They usually
use example sentences to illustrate the grammar rules they have just taught,
students are required to follow the example to make sentences by using the
grammar.
(5)
The contents of texts are usually neglected. Instead the texts are often used
as the material for teachers to explain those long and detailed grammatical
problems.
(6)
Students are required to start to read classics at an early stage.
(7)
Students usually only do one kind of exercise. That is translation.
C.
Evaluation of Grammar Translation Method
Today,
when we look back to reevaluate grammar translation method again, it gets the
following judgments:
(1)
It exaggerated the function in the learning of a foreign language.
(2)
It emphasized too much on the knowledge of language, ignored the training the
language skills.
(3)
The whole process of foreign language teaching is mechanical, out of the touch
of real language environment, no practical meaning.
(4)
It pays attention only to written language instead of spoken language.
Anyhow,
people shall never forget that grammar translation method have already done so
much for foreign language teaching. Its contribution is still great.
II.
STRUCTURALISM
A.
Why Did Structuralism Come into Being?
Some
scholars gradually became not satisfied with structuralism when they got to see
clearly about the flaws of traditional grammar. They thought it blocked the way
of further research of language. It eventually would cause negative effect on
language development and the development of linguistics. They looked for new
approaches to language study, and this brought about structuralism (structural
linguistics).
B.
What Is Structuralism?
According
to Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics,
Structuralism is ―an approach to linguistics which stresses the importance of
language as a system and which investigates the place that linguistic unit such
as sounds, words, sentenced have within this system‖.
Swiss
linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, called as the father of modern traditional
linguist, is widely respected as the founder of structuralism. He is a major
modern linguist who made preparations for structuralism. Saussure affirmed the
validity and necessity of diachronic approaches used by former linguists and
then introduced the new synchronic approach, drawing linguists’ attention to
the nature and composition of language and its constituent parts. That is to
say, Saussure holds that language is a highly organic unity with internal and
systematic rules.
III.
DIFFERENCED BETWEEN TRADITIONAL GRAMMAR AND STRUCTURALISM
If
we study the two approaches carefully, we find they have the following
differences:
(1)
Traditional grammar consider written language to be the first place, spoken
language the second. But for structuralism, it’s just the opposite.
(2)
Traditional grammar is prescriptive. It holds that pure language must be in
accordance with grammar, otherwise it corrupts language. Structuralism is
descriptive. They think if we want to study language, we must describe language
first. Whether a language is pure or not is just a matter of how we set the
criteria.
(3)
Traditional grammar classifies languages into different levels according to
their closeness to Latin. Latin and the language of classics are considered to
be the perfect languages, the rest are languages of less perfection.
Structuralism denies this. It considers any language of any nation of minority
is kind of well-developed communication system.
(4)
The description of languages by traditional grammar was a total mess. It often
describes languages of different time together. Structuralism holds that only
languages of the same time can be studied, it prefers diachronic study of
languages.
(5)
Traditional grammar does study about the inner part of languages independently,
it does not view the different parts of a language are closely related with
each other. Structuralism gives systematic study to all the layers of a
language as a general principle.
(6)
The description of language by traditional grammar is always subjective because
its research is often based on the meaning rather than language form. However,
structuralism gives objective description of language materials. Any subjective
involvement in the description of language is not allowed.
From
the above comparison, we can see that their differences are rather huge. Their
difference has made us realized that it was basing on the total destroy of
traditional grammar that structuralism came into being. It’s more scientific
than traditional grammar. It more objectively describes languages on a whole.
Because of all these, it was welcomed by scholar since the end of the 19th
century, and soon became popular in the whole world.
IV.
TWO SCHOOLS OF STRUCTURALISM
Structuralism
has two schools, European school and American school. They are not quite the
same. Let’s have a look at them respectively.
A.
European School
Saussure
is considered to be the representative of the European school. His contribution
mainly includes two aspects. On the one hand, he settled down the general direction
of modern linguistics, made clear the essence of language and designed the
tasks of linguistic research. Saussure’s view that the meanings of words are to
be understood through their relations to each other was quite opposed to the
positivist method among dominant academicians in his day, he sought to
understand language through analysis of sounds and their impact on the nervous
system. On the other hand, several distinctions Saussure made laid down great
foundation for later research. They are langue and parole, synchronically and
diachronically (i.e. historically). Without making their relationships clear,
the research of modern linguistics is likely to get back on the way of
traditional grammar.
B.
American School
Leonard
Bloomfield is widely respected as one of the best linguists of the last century
and one of the best of all time as well. He spent most of his time dealing with
comparing and contrasting Germanic languages. His best know publication Language
dealing with a standard text gave a tremendous influence on his
contemporaries and followers. Until very recently most American linguists
considered themselves Bloomfield's disciples in some sense. Whether they
studied or learned from him or not, many of their linguistic works have taken
the form of working out questions raised by Bloomfield. And methods they
adopted are just those suggested by him too.
Bloomfield
invented immediate constitute analysis (IC analysis) to dissect a sentence into
small parts. e. g. for this sentence, handsome Jackie Chang is a famous
actor.We can treat it in the following way by using IC analysis:
The
first analysis: Handsome Jackie Chang∕is a famous boxer.
The
second analysis: Handsome ∥Jackie Chang∕is a∥ famous boxer.
The
third analysis: Handsome ∥Jackie Chang∕is∕∕∕ a∥ famous∕∕∕ boxer.
If
a sentence is longer, this process can continually go on. No matter how long a
sentence is, by adopting IC analysis, it can be divided into the different
smallest constitutes which make the sentence. In this way, the different constitutes
of a sentence can be examined. And it proves that a language is a system of
symbolic structures.
We
have to consider a little bit about the research of the psychological fields at
the beginning of the 20th century too. At that time, mentalism lead by W. Wundt
was in a dilemma. Psychologists were thinking about a new theory to help
psychology get out of the mud. Then, a psychological revolution launched by J.
B. Watson established behaviorism to replace Wundt’s mentalism. They argued
that the acquirement of any knowledge involves direct experience: knowledge
acquired only through objective and observable experiment can be reliable,
otherwise not. Any feeling, impression is not to be dependent upon.
Bloomfield
used behaviorism to guide his structuralist approach to language study, and
audio-lingual language teaching method was brought forward.
V.
AUDIO-LINGUAL LANGUAGE TEACHING METHOD
Different
from grammar translation method discussed above, audio-lingual language
teaching method treats language as a kind of human habit, it is the speech that
is supposed to be spoken by language speakers rather than written out by them.
So we need to teach language itself, not knowledge.
Usually,
a language class conducted by way of Audio-lingual language teaching method has
the following characters:
Drilling
is a central technique. The study process of a foreign language is the process
of habit forming. The first step is mimicking, and this process repeats
constantly until a learner feels natural to speak out the sentence he or she is
required to learn. That means the formation of a habit of saying such a
sentence naturally. Teachers are required to guide students to practice the
same sentence again and again until they finally get familiar with it. As for
the dialogues and texts in the textbooks, students are required to read them
again and again, until they could recite them. Communicative activities are
achieved through a long, boring and repetitive process of rigorous drills and
exercises.
One
main teaching responsibility of the teacher is that he or she should try his or
her best to prohibit students making mistakes. The existence of mistakes may
stay in the habit, which is called mistake acquisition. So whenever a mistake
is found out, the teacher should correct it at once.
Teachers
play the role of a model for the target language; students should try their
best to mimic the pronunciation and intonation of the teacher. Teachers are
supposed to provide very standard, native-sound pronunciation and intonation of
the target language. The primary goal of teaching is to secure formal
correctness. Their native language habits are not supposed to be taken into the
classroom, translation is forbidden at early stages.
Language
materials are not shown to the students with nothing else. They are always
shown in certain contexts. The teaching of grammar is conducted within
dialogues. Grammatical explanation is often avoided. Varieties of language
usage are recognized, but teachers don’t emphasize this.
This
method considers that every language has a certain amount of sentence patterns
that help students form the habit of using it. The purpose of language teaching
is to let students acquire these sentence patterns. They learn sentence
structures before vocabulary. The introduction of new vocabulary is conducted
through dialogues.
Teachers
usually ask another question just after students have answered the former
question. This is to help them form the mechanism of answering questions
automatically.
Oral
language is considered to be more important than written language, so oral
practice is more emphasized in the whole course of teaching and learning. The
natural order of foreign language study is listening goes before speaking.
Speaking goes before reading, reading goes before writing.
The
teaching of culture is separated from the teaching of language. Audio-lingual
language teaching method prefers to regard language as a kind of habit. It also
values the importance of culture and regards it as an inseparable part in the
life of the native speakers of the target language. However, it does not
involve cultural teaching into the teaching of the target language; teachers
only introduce the cultural knowledge to the whole class.
To
sum up, the final purpose of audio-lingual language teaching method is to train
the students in the target language and let them have the ability to use it to
communicate with the native speakers. A teacher acts as the conductor of an
orchestra. Students follow the tapes or the model of the teacher to practice.
The native language of the learners and the target language are of compared by
the teacher, and this kind of comparison is to find the differences between the
two languages. This is to reduce the disturbance that might come from their
native language.
VI.
DEVELOPMENT OF LINGUISTIC THEORIES IN THE LATER HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY
A.
Chomsky and Transformational-generative Grammar
Noam
Chomsky has made distinguished achievements in many fields including
linguistics, philosophy, intellectual history and international politics, etc.
He is a fellow in several societies including linguistics, politics,
psychology, arts and sciences in the United States and abroad. He has awarded
honorary degrees from tens of universities from Cambridge University to Harvard
University. However, he is best known for his contribution in linguistics.
―During
the years 1951 to 1955, Chomsky was a Junior Fellow of the Harvard University
Society of Fellows. While a Junior Fellow he completed his doctoral
dissertation entitled, Transformational Analysis. The major theoretical
viewpoints of the dissertation appeared in the monograph Syntactic Structure,
which was published in 1957. This formed part of a more extensive work, The Logical
Structure of Linguistic Theory, circulated in mimeograph in 1955 and published
in 1975‖. The reason why
Chomsky invented new theory for structuralism is that he found there are many
limitations in the classification of language structure according to
distribution and arrangement. So he started to punch the prevailing
structuralist descriptive linguistics. Due to this academic practice, Chomsky
established the world-famous Transformational-generative (TG) grammar step by
step. In 1957, he published his syntactic structures, which marked the
beginning of the Chomskyan Revolution.
By
observing that some important facts had never been analyzed adequately, Chomsky
gave an innateness hypothesis. First, children acquire language competence very
fast and with almost no effort. It has been universally acknowledged that
children become fluent speakers of their native language by the age of five. If
we consider the fact that children shall never be intellectually prepared for
any other subjects of science, this is quite a shocking fact. A child never
seems to make conscious, intentional, painstaking efforts in acquiring his
native language as in learning any other subject, such as mathematics or
physics. What’s more, one amazing phenomenon is that the first language
acquisition unconditionally takes place without any intentional or explicit
teaching of it. And the language a child hears is often not necessarily the
most standard of the language he or she is acquiring. What is that which
enables a child retain those correct expressions and avoid what is not proper
in the language? In terms of the stages of language acquisition, all children
usually follow the same stages: the babbling stage, nonsense word stage,
holophrastic stage, two-word utterance, developing grammar, near-adult grammar,
and full competence. In terms of the correctness of grammar, a child can not
only produce and understand sentences he has heard, but also sentences he has
never come across before. The questions are the ones that the former linguists
never thought about seriously. Through discussing these questions, Chomsky
insists that if children are not born with a predisposition to acquire a
language in almost the same way as they are born with the innate ability to
walk, these phenomena shall never be possible.
Basing
on the hypothesis, Chomsky believes that language competence is somewhat
innate, and that our children are born with a language acquisition device
(LAD), or language competence, which fit children for language learning. LAD is
supposed to consist of three elements: a hypothesis-maker, linguistic
universal, and an evaluation procedure. Chomsky further put out a new theory, ―generative
grammar‖. By this, he simply
means ―a system of rules that in some explicit and well-defined way assigns
structural descriptions to sentences‖(Hu,
2002, p. 724). That is Chomsky believes that every child of a language is
proficient in and internalized a kind of generative grammar that proves his
knowledge of his first language. And the theory of generative grammar
experience altogether five periods from the beginning until the later theories,
which has really brought life to structuralism in the later half of last
century, helped it to go on. But the theory itself has been very much
controversial. Some scholars completely accept it. Some agree that it is a kind
of breakthrough of structuralism but do not agree with all of it. Some totally
reject it. Among them, there are even his students.
B.
Hymes’s Communicative
Competence –
Shift
from Structuralism to Functionalism
Dell
Hymes, Commonwealth Professor of Anthropology, Emeritus professor of University
of Virginia, teaching classes in linguistic anthropology, Native American
mythology, ethno poetics, and Native American poetry. He is one of the persons
who do not completely agree with Chomsky. Hymes uses his knowledge of
anthropology, linguistics, and ethnography in working with verbal traditions
and languages of Oregon and Washington. In 1972, Hymes pointed out that Chomsky’s
theory about language competence is not convincing enough to interpret language
phenomenon. He put forward the theory of communicative competence. In it, he
argues that ―language competence is part of communicative competence which
includes four parts:
(1)
Probability, i.e., whether or not communicative competence can be in accordance
with grammar rules, whether or not communicative competence can be realized in
the level of language form.
(2)
Practicability, i.e., whether or not a language can be used for communication
and to what degree it can be involved in communication.
(3)
Accuracy, i.e., whether or not a speech is appropriate in a certain context and
to what degree it is appropriate.
(4)
Effectiveness, i.e., whether or not a speech has been made and to what degree
it has been made‖
(Wen, 1999, p. 4).
C.
Canale & Swain’s Enrichment
to Communicative Competence
During
the 1980s, Canale & Swain contributed more to enrich Hymes communicative
competence. They thought that communicative competence at least includes four
aspects of knowledge and skills:
(1)
Linguistic competence, i.e., the innate grammar of a speaker which helps to
generate correct sentence, as same as what Chomsky refers to.
(2)
Sociolinguistic competence, i.e., the ability of a speaker to understand the
speech of others and make a speech appropriately due to a certain kind of time,
place and partner he or she is talking with.
(3)
Discourse competence, i.e., the ability of a speaker to generate meaning out of
disordered language data. It includes two aspects named cohesion and coherence.
(4)
Strategic competence, i.e., the ability of a speaker to use different kinds of
communication strategies according to different discourse, such as avoidance,
interpretation, transcription, asking for help, pretending to be having not
heard, euphemism, correction, repetition, hesitation, guess, etc., for the
purpose of achieving successful communication.
D.
Latest Contribution by Bachman and WEN Qiu-fang
This
is not the end of the disputes about what are included in communicative
competence, While Canale and Swain's strategic competence puts its emphasis on
"compensatory" strategies – that is, strategies used to compensate a
shortage in some language area, the term has taken on a broader meaning in
recent years. In 1990, Lyre F. Bachman, once being the president of the
International Language Testing Association and the American Association for
Applied Linguistics, provided a wider theoretical context of strategic
competence through dividing it into three components. Later, in 1996, Bachman
and Palmer improved the Bachman categories for strategic competence of 1990 to
cover four components:
(1)
Assessment, i.e., a speaker assesses which communicative goals are possibly to
be achieved and what linguistic sources are needed.
(2)
Goal-setting, i.e., a speaker identifies the specific tasks to be performed.
(3)
Planning, i.e., a speaker retrieves the relevant items from his realm of
language knowledge and plans their use.
(4)
Execution, i.e., a speaker implements the plan.
We
might think this is already broad and scientific enough. However, Chinese
scholar WEN Qiu-fang added cross- cultural competence into it as well. Hence,
this latest framework for strategic competence is much broader and more
scientific than before.
VII.
FUNCTIONAL-NOTIONAL APPROACH
These
new theories finally brought the ideal of functional-notional grammar and
functional-notional approach in language teaching. This new approach holds that
the functions of language used in the real daily life are most important and it
is essential for a language learner to take part in the everyday language
activities such as giving directions, buying a ticket, bargaining or consoling
and so on. That is to say, to know the forms of a language are important, but
it is more important to know the functions and decide which situations to use
each kind of function, the learner should practice real and practical
communication in a language learning class. The teaching syllabus should
describe the situations that a language learner might find himself or herself
in, the language activities he is most likely to be involved into, the
functions of language that are most frequently used, and the topics that are
and common in life.
VIII.
BIRTH OF FUNCTIONAL LINGUISTICS
M.
A. K. Halliday, Emeritus Professor at the University of Sydney, is
"world-renowned as the leading representative of systemic-functional linguistics
and as an authority in many other areas of linguistics, including language in
education, text linguistics, developmental linguistics, grammar, and social
linguistics". In his theory, Halliday has intended to create a new
approach in linguistics that regards language as foundational for the building
of human experience. His insights and contributions form a new linguistic
approach known as systemic-functional linguistics. Halliday stresses that
language cannot be disassociated and disconnected from meaning.
Systemic-functional linguistics considers communicative function and semantics
as the basis of human language and communicative activity. Unlike structural
approaches that favor syntax first, SFL-oriented linguists privilege an
analysis within social context to find out how language reflects, and is
controlled and influenced by, this social context. A key concept in Halliday's
linguistics is the JOURNAL
OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND RESEARCH 563
© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
"context
of situation" which obtains "through a systematic relationship
between the social environment on the one hand, and the functional organization
of language on the other" (Halliday, 1985, p. 11).
IX.
COMMUNICATIVE APPROACH OF LANGUAGE TEACHING
With
such great enrichment of language theories during this period of time, people
couldn’t help seeing the coming of new language teaching theory. And surely it
did. These new theories have made it clear that communication is the most basic
function and characteristic of language. Meanwhile, they have brought the birth
of communicative approach of language teaching. This approach was first
mentioned by Wilkins and Widdowson.
A.
Definition of Communicative Approach of Language Teaching
The
communicative approach is characterized by a set of ideas that include not only
a reconsideration of which aspects of language to teach, but also an emphasis
on how to teach. The ancient Chinese proverb "giving a man a fish and you
feed him for a day, teaching him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
can best illustrate this approach.
B.
Principles of Communicative Approach of Language Teaching
In
communicative approach of language teaching, what matters most is that students
should be aroused the desire to communicate something, supply them a purpose of
communicating, for example, to write a letter to a friend, to make an
appointment with a teacher, to book an airline ticket. Students should
concentrate on the content of what they are saying or writing rather than on a
particular grammatical point. They should use a variety of language structures
rather than just a single language structure. During the course of a students’
activity, the teacher shall not interrupt before it is finished; and the
materials the teacher use will not dictate what specific language forms the
students should use. That is to say, such activities should attempt to take the
place of real communication in life. The multiple roles a teacher plays include
planner, participant, diagnostician, provider, manager, and organizer etc.
The
teaching syllabus of communicative language teaching will generally include:
(1)
The social situations typically for students to use a foreign language.
(2)
The topics they are likely to address.
(3)
The language functions they need to use.
(4)
The vocabulary and grammar structures needed for these functions.
(5)
The communicative skills required in typical social situations.
C.
Problems Existing in Communicative Approach of Language Teaching
Communicative
approach of language teaching has become the most scientific of all the
language teaching theories we have so far, though, it still isn’t a perfect
approach. The problems lying in this approach are:
(1)
Until now there is no agreed classification about the functions of language.
This makes it not clear that how a teaching syllabus chooses what language
functions to teach and arrange them as well.
(2)
In what way a textbook arrange these functions and grammar is hard to be
decided.
(3)
In the actual practice of communicative approach language teaching, we find it’s
challenging to emphasize both language ability and communication competence.
(4)
Our teachers are expected to improve their language ability and communicative
competence too.
X.
CONCLUSION
All
these issues can be real challenges to language teaching. To solve these
problems, new language theories are expected to emerge in the new age. History
has proved that new language-teaching theories are the off springs of new
language theories. How much we understand our languages, how far we can go in
teaching them. Only depending on new language theory, language teaching theory
can move forward step by step. Luckily, the buds of spring are indeed round the
corner. With several new branches of linguistics, such as computational
linguistics, corpus linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc., are marching forward
in a fast speed in our time with the assistance of information technology,
brain science, psychological science, and so on, we hopefully will witness the
day that new language teaching theories will emerge in the near future.
REFERENCES
[1]
Chen, Jianlin. (2000). Organization and Management of Modern English Teaching.
Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching Press.
[2]
Cook, Vivian. (2000). Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Beijing:
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
[3]
Gao, Qiang; Li Yang. (2006). Review of the Latest Research on Foreign Language
Teaching Styles. Foreign Language Teaching, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 53-58.
[4]
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context, and text:
aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
[5]
Hu, Zhuanglin; Jiang Wangqi. (2002). Advanced Linguistics. Beijing: Peking UP.
[6]
Richards, Jack. C. (2000). Longman dictionary of language teaching and applied
linguistics. Beijing: Foreign language teaching
564 JOURNAL OF LANGUAGE TEACHING AND
RESEARCH
© 2014 ACADEMY PUBLISHER
and
research press.
[7]
Wang, Yin. (2001). Semantic Theories and Language Teaching. Shanghai: Foreign
Language Teaching Press.
[8]
Wen, Qiufang. (1999). Oral English Test and Teaching. Shanghai: Foreign
Language Teaching Press.
[9]
Widdowson, H. G. (2000). Aspects of Language Teaching. Shanghai: Shanghai
Foreign Language Teaching Press.
[10]
Xu, Qiang. (2002). Communicative English Teaching and Test Assessment.
Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching Press.
[11]
Yin, Zhonglai; Zhou Guangya. (1990). Theories and Schools of English Grammar.
Chengdu: Sichuan UP.
[12]
Zhou, Sheng. (2003). Study of English Language Test. Chengdu: Sichuan UP.
Yanhua
Xia was
born in Luzhou, China in 1978. He received his M.A. degree in foreign
linguistics and applied linguistics from University of Electronic Science and
Technology, China in 2009.
He
is currently an associate professor of English at School of Foreign Languages,
China West Normal University, Nanchong, China and a PhD candidate of English
literature at School of Foreign Studies, University of Science and Technology
Beijing, Beijing. Main areas of expertise include English teaching methodology,
applied linguistics and British literature. Representative publication is ―Reading
Michael Longley for the Dialectic between Intertextuality and Literary
Innovation‖
in Contemporary Foreign
No comments:
Post a Comment