The Application of English-Chinese Comparison to Culture Teaching APPLICATION DE LA COMPARAISON ANGLAIS-CHINOIS A L'ENSEIGNEMENT DE CULTURE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: This thesis is a tentative endeavor to employ English-Chinese comparison to culture teaching so as to help English learners overcome negative transfer from their native culture and learn more idiomatic English. Key words: the English language, the Chinese language, comparison, culture teaching Resume: Cet essai tente d'employer la comparaison anglais-chinois a l'enseignement de culture afin d'aider les apprenants de l'anglais a vaincre les transferts negatifs de leur culture native a la culture anglaise et a apprendre davantage un anglais impeccable. Mots-Cles: langue anglaise, langue chinoise, comparaison, enseignement de culture 1. INTRODUCTION Language and culture are inseparable. Language is an integral component of culture. The ultimate goal of EFL teaching is to make learners achieve better intercultural communicative competence, a fuller understanding of the target people, their way of life and their society as well. Therefore, in addition to linguistic knowledge itself, language learning and teaching should involve corresponding sociocultural background knowledge of the target language, and aim at conquering the interference from one's own culture and habits. 2. THEORETICAL BASIS At the very beginning of 20th century, linguists began to compare English and Chinese and gain an insight into both the homogeneity and heterogeneity of the two languages. The early contributors involve Ma Jianzhong, Ya Fu, Wang Li, etc. It is their great efforts and findings that establish a theoretical framework and practical foundation for the later study and application in teaching. Since 1970s, linguists and foreign language specialists employ gradually the principles and findings of comparison of English and Chinese to guide foreign language and culture teaching. As famous linguist Lu Shuxiang (1982) indicates, by comparison only, the characteristics of Chinese and English are revealed and easier to learn and teach. Lado (1957:1), at the beginning of his influential work, Linguistics across Cultures, quotes words of Fries: The best textbook is like this - its standing point should describe scientifically the second language learned by students; On the other hand, it provides a paralleled description of the first language of students and compare them attentively. So, it is utterly necessary for English teachers to draw a systematic English-Chinese comparison in their English language and culture teaching. 3. CAUSES Nevertheless, after having received several years of formal English teaching, students still remain deficient in the ability to actually use the language, and to understand its use in normal communication. Most students lack the ability of using proper language in proper situation. It is mainly caused by different cultural background of the people in contact. Interlocutors from different cultural background are apt to share different beliefs, manifest different behaviors, and no two interactants have the identical perception of the social world. Hence, there are conflicts of values between the different cultures and different assessments of relative power. Different cultures have different culture conventions. Different language has different language conventions. When a person learns and uses English, he is confronted with the problem of cultural inappropriateness. As Lado (1957:2) states, individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture - both productively when attempting to speak the language and to act in the culture, and receptively when attempting to grasp and understand the language and the culture as practiced by the natives. For example, once a Chinese student met with a foreigner who was lost in his way back to his hotel. The student said that he happened to go in the same direction and if he followed him he could show him the right way back. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".