在对外汉语教学中，教师的教学语言既是课堂教学的讲授语言，又是学生要学习掌握的目的语。因此对外汉语教师的课堂教学语言承担着目的语输入的重要任务。本论文以Krashen的输入假设和Long的互动假设为理论指导，以收集到的语料为基础，具体考察了北京师范大学汉语文化学院101精读课中五位教师的讲授语和提问语。在语料的收集上首先通过mp3录音收集语音语料，之后采用人工输入的方式将语音语料转写为相应的文字，并对文字语料进行了分类统计，最后一共收集到3776条语料，其中讲授语语料291条，提问语语料3485条。论文重点从语句层面考察分析了讲授语和提问语是否具有可理解性、科学性、规范性、启发性和实用性；具备上述特性的讲授语和提问语是什么样的；哪些形式的讲授语和提问语不具备上述特性；它们能否为学生提供高质量、高效的汉语输入。通过对语料的考察分析，本文得出了以下结论：第一：在初级汉语精读课中，教师的讲授语和提问语为学生提供了充足的输入，但是还不尽理想。输入的可理解性体现在：已学过的结构和词汇；少量的英语词汇；较短的句子；认知情景的创设。影响可理解性的因素有：超出学生现有汉语水平的词汇；超长的句子。第二：教师的讲授语和提问语在语句的科学性和规范性上存在问题较多，影响了输入的质量。这些问题主要有：表述内容不符合客观实际；词法错误；句法错误以及英语词汇的使用。以“嗯，啊，哎”为代表的感叹语句；不必要的重复；自我更正语；自我弃置语；插入语以及附加在语句前的“那，那么”等指示代词不仅影响到讲授语和提问语的规范性，还使得教师语言效率不高。“无效用词”“无效语句”也影响到教师语言的有效性。第三：在讲授语和提问语中，教师采取的启发方式是认知情景的创设。另外教师的提问语还常常通过各种问句形式的发问语、半截子话以及问句形式的发问语和半截子话的组合对学生进行启发引导。第四：“公式化”的提示语句及教师围绕日常生活情景进行创设的语句，在理论上应该是具有实用性的语句。学生在习得这些语句后可以在真实的日常生活中运用，进行交际。但是这一点还需要对学生的日常生活用语进行调查分析后，才能予以验证。

In Chinese teaching as a foreign language, teacher talk is not only the words that teacher uses to organize class, but also the target language that students are learning. Therefore one of the important roles of teacher talk in Chinese teaching as a foreign language is language input. This paper studies the stating and questioning part of teacher talk of five 101 intensive reading teachers from Beijing Normal University’s College of Chinese language and Culture, based on the materials collected in the class, under the theories of Krashen’s Input Hypothesis and Long’s Interaction Hypothesis.The materials were collected by mp3 at first and then were transferred into written context by the writer. After the classification of 3776 material items, there are 291 stating items and 3485 questioning items.On the level of sentence, the paper focuses on whether the stating talk and questioning talk are understandable, scientific, standard, enlightening and practical. What should the stating and questioning talk with these properties be like? What kind of stating and questioning talk do not have these properties? Whether can this kind of stating and questioning talk input efficient and standard Chinese in students?According to the inspection and analysis of materials, the paper makes conclusions as follows: First, in the elementary Chinese intensive reading class, teachers’ stating and questioning talk offer sufficient input for students, but are not very ideal. It is understandable because of the structures and vocabulary that students have already learned, a few English words, short sentences, situations set. It is not understandable because of higher level vocabulary, sentences too long.Second, there are many problems in teachers’ stating and questioning talk, which reduce the input’s quality. These problems are mainly: stating or questioning talk does not conform to reality; errors exist in words, sentences and English use. exclamatory sentences with "er, ah", unnecessary repetition , self-correcting words, self-abandoning words, parenthesisand additional demonstrative pronouns such as “that, then”, not only make the stating and questioning talk less standard but also reduce the efficiency of teacher talk.Third, setting situation is a heuristic way both used in the stating talk and the questioning talk. Teachers also often use various questions, half a sentence and the combination of various questions and half a sentence to induce students.Fourth, formulated sentences and the sentences that teachers make according to daily life should be practical. Students can use these sentences to communicate in real life. However, this point should be tested after studying student’s daily life wording.