我是有个双语儿童.其实,他爸爸很忙,每天和他说话的时间并不是很多,实际上.这里面就是有方法的问题的

Your husband is a native English speaker and you are a native Chinese speaker, that's why your kid is bi-lingual, which has nothing to do with "methodology". Even if you don't teach your kid English---in fact many bilingual families never do---, he is bi-lingual, exceptions being that the kids have passed their puberty before the family becomes bi-lingual when only one of the parents' native languages becomes the kids' native tongue.
On the other hand, in mono-lingual families, it is virtually impossible to breed a "bilingual kid". The best result of any methods, teaching a language in the native way or with the help of translation, will be that the kid becomes fluent in a foreign language. And this "foreign language", technically speaking, can never be identical with his native language. It will, ultimately, become an "interlanguage"..

I have no intention to undermine your achievment in language teaching, and i admire your real experience with real kids. The only difference between you and me is our definition of "fluency" and "native proficiency". I know several foreigners who speak Chinese much better than "DA SHAN", but we can still detect that their speech is not native Chinese. Anyhow it doesn't matter if, by common standard, we consider them having "native proficiency" in Chinese language.
I see you are a good language instructor, partly because of your family environment, and mostly because of your zeal and endeavor. My first response to your post is purely out of respect. i suppose you won't feel offended.
As a matter of fact, there are lots of people in the linguistic circle who firmly believe that language is, to a large extent, genetic. That is controversial of course, I am not going to argue any more. Finally, i suggest you read something about linguistic study, especially works by Noam Chomsky in Second Language Acquisition, you probably will see my understanding about "bi-lingualness", "native proficiency", etc.

[ 本帖最后由 Cherrydaddy 于 2007-7-26 07:21 编辑 ].

引用:

原帖由 watermelon 于 2007-7-26 12:38 发表
I know many people who would refer to "Da Shan's" ability as "native proficiency." In fact, he is commonly described as having "better than native ability" by Chinese and Westerners alike. The ab ...

I appreciate your honest reponse. And let's put an end to this. I agree that there are lots of people who are enthusiastic and quite efficient in teaching English, and I am only too willing to learn from them. As I said before, I have no intention to undermine your effort and your achievement, neither do i want to challenge your method. NOT AT ALL. Thanks!.

引用:

原帖由 和你在一起 于 2007-7-27 01:19 发表
讨论越来越深入，参加者越来越多。
能否把术语先规定好，免得产生歧义。
正方：全英语教学——尽量不（有的人强调完全不）借助孩子母语进行说明、释义
反方：中介语教学——不排除借助学习者母语进行说明、释 ...

我介入这个讨论的出发点是: 在中国目前的情况下全英语教学并非广大家长的最好的选择.
首先,全英语教学的确是个很好的方法,我在国外的一些朋友,他们的孩子就在当地的幼儿园或小学读书,一两年后英语水平和英国的小孩子没有任何区别.母语环境对小孩子学语言的确很好.
中国目前的情况是,许多英语培训机构鼓吹"让孩子说一口流利的美语","让孩子说一口地道的英语",这本身就是一种误导.英语本是一种语言,语言是用来交流的,能否达到"母语"水平其实无关紧要.即使我们的英语有很浓厚的中国口音,只要在交流的时候没有障碍,就是good English.
第二,关于英语思维的问题也有许多误区.比如有很多人提到的中国人把开电视说成open the TV,这并非思维问题,因为中国人也不会在看电视的时候把它给open了,只是一种说法而已,或者说词语搭配问题.同样的事情有不同的词语来表达,我们喝汤的时候,英语国家的人eat some soup.并非他们就是用叉子叉起来往嘴巴里送!这些中式错误只是因为中国的语言学习者不知道地道的英文说法,即使一个老师用中文来教英语,如果他告诉学生这些差别,学生当然不会再去open the computer,也不会drink some soup.这与思维无关.
打一个不恰当的比方.当前的全英语教学法,性价比不高。有个孩子在某培训机构学全外教英语,另一个孩子在跟中教学新概念,几年下来两个孩子相比,前者水平比后者高,却也并没有达到:"流利的美语,地道的英语",但家长付出确实是地道的人民币.实际一点考虑,少花钱,学到足以应付交流的英语,比起为了学到"地道的美语"花大钱,最终仅仅是比一般人好一点的结果要合理的多。
所以,对于经济条件较好，不在乎花钱多少的家长来说，选择全英语教育无可厚非.但一味鼓吹全英语教学法,未免有误导家长的嫌疑.
最后声明,本人无意贬低所有的英语培训机构,但当前英语培训市场良莠不齐也是事实,广大家长应该瞪大眼珠子,捂紧钱袋子!相信有许多人已经上过当了,那些在幼儿园门口游弋的"xx英语"的"教育顾问"们,请你去听"专家"的讲座,最终的目的是让你买几千元的教材,他自己好从中提成!

[ 本帖最后由 Cherrydaddy 于 2007-7-27 14:02 编辑 ].