本文選題：詞匯附帶習(xí)得 + 輸入方式�。� 參考：《廣州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：關(guān)于詞匯附帶習(xí)得方面的研究已經(jīng)有了很多,但關(guān)于不同輸入方式下詞匯附帶習(xí)得的效果尚存在一些爭議。盡管已有大量的實驗研究證實了通過閱讀和聽力附帶習(xí)得詞匯的可行性,較少的研究聚焦于對兩種輸入方式下詞匯附帶習(xí)得效果的比較。因此,本文以詞匯附帶習(xí)得假說和克拉申的輸入假說為基礎(chǔ),以中國高中生為對象,旨在探究聽力輸入和閱讀輸入對英語詞匯附帶習(xí)得的影響有何差異,據(jù)此提出了兩個研究目標:1)探究聽力輸入和閱讀輸入對英語詞匯附帶習(xí)得的影響有何差異,從詞形、詞義和應(yīng)用三個方面來分析。2)探究聽力輸入和閱讀輸入對英語詞匯保持情況的影響有何差異,從詞形、詞義和應(yīng)用三個方面來分析。本研究中的參試為廣州市番禺區(qū)某高中的80位高二學(xué)生。研究工具包括一次即時詞匯習(xí)得測試和一次延時詞匯保持測試。參試被分成兩組,每組40人,一組聽材料回答相關(guān)的問題;另一組閱讀材料回答相關(guān)的問題,兩組所用的材料為同一篇文章。聽力和閱讀時長均為10分鐘。材料中的9個生詞被選為本研究的目標詞,參試完成聽力或閱讀理解練習(xí)后,接受即時測試和延時測試,延時測試在即時測試后一周進行。兩次測試前參試都并未被告知后續(xù)會進行詞匯測試。測試的數(shù)據(jù)由研究者收集,采用獨立樣本t檢驗方法來分析兩者之間可能存在的差異。研究結(jié)果顯示,在即時測試中,閱讀組的成績要高于聽力組且兩者存在顯著差異。根據(jù)對測試中三個部分的分析,在詞形和詞義方面,兩組之間不存在顯著差異;然而在詞匯應(yīng)用方面,閱讀組的得分要顯著高于聽力組。在延時測試中,聽力組和閱讀組總體之間沒有發(fā)現(xiàn)顯著的差異,但對詞形、詞義和應(yīng)用三個方面的分析結(jié)果與即時測試中的一致。基于以上發(fā)現(xiàn),本研究表明:1)中國高中生能夠通過聽力輸入和閱讀輸入附帶習(xí)得詞匯知識;2)閱讀輸入相對聽力輸入的詞匯附帶習(xí)得效果要好,尤其是在詞匯應(yīng)用方面;3)兩種輸入方式對于詞匯保持情況的效果不相上下,盡管閱讀輸入在詞匯應(yīng)用知識方面的保持仍然要顯著好于聽力輸入。通過本研究得到以下啟示:首先,老師和學(xué)生有必要通過利用不同的輸入方式來促進詞匯不同部分的習(xí)得。閱讀材料可以用來學(xué)習(xí)新詞匯在情境中用法,而聽力輸入可以提供詞匯的聽力信息以鞏固詞匯的保持情況。其次,頻繁的復(fù)習(xí)對于詞匯學(xué)習(xí)來說是至關(guān)重要的。
[Abstract]:There have been many studies on incidental vocabulary acquisition, but there are still some controversies about the effect of incidental vocabulary acquisition under different input modes. Although a large number of experimental studies have confirmed the feasibility of incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading and listening less research has focused on the comparison of the effects of incidental vocabulary acquisition between the two input modes. Therefore, based on the incidental vocabulary acquisition hypothesis and Krashen's input hypothesis, this paper aims to explore the differences between listening input and reading input on incidental vocabulary acquisition in Chinese high school students. Based on this, this paper proposes two research objectives: 1) to explore the differences between listening input and reading input on incidental acquisition of English vocabulary, and to explore the differences between listening input and reading input in the incidental acquisition of English vocabulary. (2) to explore the differences between listening input and reading input on English vocabulary retention, from three aspects of word form, word meaning and application. This study included 80 sophomores from a high school in Panyu District, Guangzhou. The tools include an instant vocabulary acquisition test and a delayed vocabulary retention test. The subjects were divided into two groups, 40 people in each group, one group of listening materials to answer related questions, the other group of reading materials to answer related questions, two groups of materials used in the same article. Both listening and reading are 10 minutes long. Nine new words were selected as the target words in this study. After the listening or reading comprehension exercises were completed, the students were given instant and delayed tests, and the delay tests were conducted one week after the instant test. Neither test was informed that a vocabulary test would be conducted later. The test data were collected by the researchers and the possible differences between the two were analyzed by using the independent sample t test method. The results showed that the scores of the reading group were higher than those of the listening group in the instant test and there were significant differences between the two groups. According to the analysis of the three parts of the test, there is no significant difference between the two groups in terms of lexical form and lexical meaning; however, the scores of the reading group are significantly higher than those of the listening group in terms of vocabulary application. There was no significant difference between the listening group and the reading group in the delay test, but the analysis results of the lexical form, word meaning and application were consistent with those in the instant test. Based on the above findings, the present study shows that Chinese senior high school students can acquire vocabulary knowledge by listening input and reading input incidental acquisition. Especially in terms of lexical application, the two input methods have the same effect on vocabulary retention, although the retention of reading input in lexical application knowledge is still significantly better than that of listening input. First, it is necessary for teachers and students to use different input methods to promote the acquisition of different parts of vocabulary. Reading materials can be used to learn how new words are used in situations, while listening input can provide listening information to reinforce vocabulary retention. Secondly, frequent review is essential for vocabulary learning.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H319.3

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 常樂;王文婷;;二語詞匯深度知識測量工具及其應(yīng)用研究[J];外語測試與教學(xué);2015年02期

2 孔繁霞;王歆;;任務(wù)模式與類型對詞匯附帶習(xí)得的影響研究[J];外語界;2014年06期

3 汪紅;甄薇薇;;英語聽力訓(xùn)練中不同任務(wù)對詞匯附帶習(xí)得的影響[J];外語教學(xué);2014年05期

4 苗麗霞;;第二語言詞匯附帶習(xí)得研究30年述評[J];外語教學(xué)理論與實踐;2014年01期

5 苗麗霞;;國內(nèi)第二語言詞匯附帶習(xí)得研究:現(xiàn)狀與發(fā)展[J];外語界;2013年05期

6 常樂;王文婷;劉佳;;聽力與閱讀附帶詞匯習(xí)得對比研究[J];中國外語教育;2013年02期

7 王同順;姚禹;許瑩瑩;;聽讀輸入模式下二語詞匯附帶習(xí)得的對比研究[J];外語與外語教學(xué);2012年06期

8 顧琦一;臧傳云;;輸入模態(tài)對第二語言理解和附帶詞匯習(xí)得的影響[J];解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年03期

9 連秀萍;黃瀊飛;;不同輸入方式對附帶英語詞匯習(xí)得的影響[J];西安外國語大學(xué)學(xué)報;2010年03期

10 吳旭東;;學(xué)習(xí)任務(wù)能影響詞匯附帶習(xí)得嗎?——“投入量假設(shè)”再探[J];外語教學(xué)與研究;2010年02期

，

本文編號：1923297