【摘要】：詞匯評(píng)估是二語(yǔ)習(xí)得研究的一個(gè)重要領(lǐng)域。詞匯豐富性是二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者口筆語(yǔ)詞匯產(chǎn)出能力的重要評(píng)估類別，該類別包含的指標(biāo)及其測(cè)量的準(zhǔn)確性是近幾十年二語(yǔ)詞匯評(píng)估中的熱點(diǎn)問題。詞匯豐富性的測(cè)量指標(biāo)包括詞匯多樣性、詞匯復(fù)雜度、詞匯密度和詞匯獨(dú)特性等。其中，，二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的測(cè)量方法是最引起爭(zhēng)議的。前期研究中二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的三種測(cè)量方法—詞頻概貌（Lexical Frequency Profile, LFP），P_Lex，Advanced D都聲稱自己是最好的，但哪一種最佳還沒有達(dá)成一致。因此，本研究旨在通過比較二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的三種測(cè)量方法，試圖找出最佳的測(cè)量方法,并為詞匯研究測(cè)量提供新路子。具體研究以下問題： 1）從信度方面看，二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的三種測(cè)量方法哪種最佳？ 2）從效度方面看，二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的三種測(cè)量方法哪種最佳？ 為分析三種測(cè)量方法的信度，本研究使用50名英語(yǔ)專業(yè)三年級(jí)學(xué)生的兩套同一題材的隨堂限時(shí)作文，第二篇作文與第一篇作文相隔兩周。 本研究從構(gòu)念效度和共現(xiàn)效度兩個(gè)方面分析三種測(cè)量方法的效度。二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的構(gòu)念效度的研究涉及到測(cè)量文本長(zhǎng)度和高級(jí)詞的變化性對(duì)三種測(cè)量方法的影響。本研究通過對(duì)來(lái)自于TEM-8考試作文中的三篇作文進(jìn)行描述性分析檢驗(yàn)三種測(cè)量方法的構(gòu)念效度。三篇作文對(duì)應(yīng)的分?jǐn)?shù)分別是18分，13分，9分，它們依次稱作高、中、低水平組�；谶@三篇作文得到的計(jì)算機(jī)模擬數(shù)據(jù)用于測(cè)量高級(jí)詞的變化性對(duì)三種測(cè)量方法的影響。在第一種模擬中，高級(jí)標(biāo)記總數(shù)保持不變，高級(jí)詞型數(shù)依次減少，在第二種模擬中，高級(jí)標(biāo)記數(shù)隨高級(jí)詞型數(shù)依次下降。 為分析三種測(cè)量方法的共現(xiàn)效度，本研究從英語(yǔ)專業(yè)八級(jí)考試作文中隨機(jī)選取80篇作文。本研究中學(xué)習(xí)者八級(jí)作文成績(jī)(滿分為20分)分布在8～18分之間，其中分布最集中的兩個(gè)分值是12和13分，我們按這兩個(gè)分值將作文成績(jī)分為兩個(gè)等級(jí):8～12分的學(xué)習(xí)者為低水平組，共42人；13～18分的學(xué)習(xí)者為高水平組，共38人。 本研究的主要發(fā)現(xiàn)如下： 信度方面，皮爾遜相關(guān)分析發(fā)現(xiàn),兩組作文中二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度的三種測(cè)量方法均達(dá)到顯著的相關(guān),但是相關(guān)度不高(LFP：r1=.327, p1=.020㩳.05；P_Lex：r2=.308, p2=.030㩳.05；Advanced D：r3=.441, p3=.001㩳.05)。配對(duì)樣本t檢驗(yàn)表明,兩組作文的詞匯復(fù)雜度有顯著差異(LFP：t1=4.804, p1=.000㩳.05；P_Lex：t2=8.837, p2=.000㩳.05；Advanced D：t3=-2.742,p3=.008㩳.05)。 構(gòu)念效度方面，在測(cè)量文本長(zhǎng)度對(duì)三種測(cè)量方法的影響時(shí)，LFP，P_Lex和Advanced D對(duì)文本長(zhǎng)度的最低要求分別是200個(gè)詞，120個(gè)詞和120個(gè)詞。但是Advanced D要略好于P_Lex，因?yàn)樵谥械退浇M作文中Advanced D獲得較為穩(wěn)定的結(jié)果是60個(gè)詞，而P_Lex是120個(gè)詞。在測(cè)量高級(jí)詞的變化性對(duì)三種測(cè)量方法的影響時(shí)，三篇不同水平作文的LFP和P_Lex的詞匯復(fù)雜度值在第一種模擬中幾乎保持不變，而在第二種模擬中不斷下降波動(dòng)。然而，Advanced D在兩種模擬中的詞匯復(fù)雜度值均呈現(xiàn)不同程度的變化。這表明Advanced D在測(cè)量高級(jí)詞的變化性對(duì)詞匯復(fù)雜度的影響時(shí)要好于P_Lex和LFP。 共現(xiàn)效度方面，相關(guān)分析發(fā)現(xiàn)三種測(cè)量方法與學(xué)習(xí)者英語(yǔ)作文質(zhì)量呈現(xiàn)微弱正相關(guān)(LFP：r1=.248, p1=.027㩳.05；P_Lex：r2=.253, p2=.024㩳.05；Advanced D：r3=.257, p3=.021㩳.05)，詞匯復(fù)雜度和詞匯多樣性呈現(xiàn)正相關(guān)(LFP：r1=.332, p1=.003㩳.05；P_Lex：r2=.236, p2=.035㩳.05；Advanced D：r3=.340, p3=.002㩳.05)，且Advanced D和LFP略高于P_Lex。 總之，Advanced D和P_Lex在控制文本長(zhǎng)度對(duì)二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度影響方面要比LFP更穩(wěn)定。而在測(cè)量高級(jí)詞的變化性對(duì)詞匯復(fù)雜度影響方面，Advanced D要好于P_Lex和LFP。綜上所述，無(wú)論從信度看還是效度看，AdvancedD是三種方法中最佳的詞匯復(fù)雜度測(cè)量方法。本研究不僅在方法論上對(duì)二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)者詞匯復(fù)雜度測(cè)量做出了貢獻(xiàn)，而且對(duì)詞匯評(píng)估也有重要意義。
[Abstract]:Vocabulary richness is an important category in the study of second language acquisition (SLA). The indicators and the accuracy of vocabulary richness measurements have been a hot issue in the field of SLA vocabulary assessment in recent decades. Among them, the measurement of L2 learners'lexical complexity is the most controversial. In the previous study, three methods of measuring L2 learners' lexical complexity, namely, Lexical Frequency Profile (LFP), P_Lex, and Advanced D, all claimed to be the best, but which one was the best, were not yet available. Consequently, this study aims to find out the best way to measure L2 learners'lexical complexity by comparing the three measurements and to provide a new way for lexical research and measurement.
1) from the perspective of reliability, what are the three best ways to measure the lexical complexity of two language learners?
2) from the perspective of validity, what are the three best ways to measure the lexical complexity of two language learners?
In order to analyze the reliability of the three measurement methods, 50 third-year English majors were asked to write two sets of time-limited compositions on the same topic in class. The second one was two weeks apart from the first one.
This study examines the validity of the three measurement methods in terms of constructive validity and co-occurrence validity. The constructive validity of L2 learners'lexical complexity involves measuring the effects of text length and the variability of advanced words on the three measurement methods. The construct validity of the three methods was analyzed and tested. The corresponding scores of the three compositions were 18, 13, and 9. They were called high, medium and low-level groups in turn. In the second simulation, the number of advanced markers decreases with the number of advanced morphologies.
In order to analyze the co-occurrence validity of the three measurement methods, 80 compositions were randomly selected from the compositions of CET-8. In this study, the scores of CET-8 compositions (20 full marks) ranged from 8 to 18. The two most concentrated scores were 12 and 13. We divided the compositions into two grades according to the two scores. A total of 8~12 learners were 42 in the low level group, and 13~18 in the high level group, 38 in total.
The main findings of this study are as follows:
In terms of reliability, Pearson correlation analysis found that there was a significant correlation between the three measurement methods of LFP: R1 =.327, P1 =.020?.05; P_Lex: R2 =.308, P2 =.030?.05; Advanced D: R3 =.441, P3 =.001?.05). The paired sample t test showed that the lexical complexity of the two groups'compositions was not significant. There were significant differences in impurity (LFP: T1 = 4.804, P1 =.000?.05; P_Lex: T2 = 8.837, P2 =.000?.05; Advanced D: T3 =-2.742, P3 =.008?.05).
In terms of constructive validity, LFP, P_Lex and Advanced D required 200 words, 120 words and 120 words respectively when measuring the effect of text length on the three measurement methods. The lexical complexity values of LFP and P_Lex in three compositions with different proficiency levels remained almost unchanged in the first simulation, but declined and fluctuated in the second simulation. However, the lexical complexity values of Advanced D showed varying degrees of variation in both simulations. This indicates that Advanced D is better than P_Lex and LFP in measuring the influence of the variability of advanced words on lexical complexity.
In terms of co-occurrence validity, the correlation analysis found that there was a weak positive correlation between the three measurement methods and the quality of English writing (LFP: R1 =.248, P1 =.027?.05; P_Lex: R2 =.253, P2 =.024?.05; Advanced D: R3 =.257, P3 =.021?.05), and lexical complexity and lexical diversity were positively correlated (LFP: R1 =.332, P1 =.003?.05; P_Lex: R2 =.236, P2 =.024?.05). =.035?.05; Advanced D:r3=.340, p3=.002?.05, and Advanced D and LFP are slightly higher than P_Lex..
In summary, Advanced D and P_Lex are more stable than LFP in controlling the effect of text length on L2 learners'lexical complexity, while Advanced D is better than P_Lex and LFP in measuring the effect of the variability of advanced words on lexical complexity. This study not only contributes to the measurement of L2 learners'lexical complexity in terms of methodology, but also plays an important role in lexical assessment.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H09

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉茜;徐建平;許諾;;人事選拔中作假的內(nèi)涵及測(cè)量方法[J];心理科學(xué)進(jìn)展;2013年02期

2 史高巖;李仁軍;張燕;張冬冬;劉金同;;校園欺負(fù)行為研究進(jìn)展[J];精神醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2010年01期

3 史玲玲;;成人依戀的研究及其進(jìn)展[J];科協(xié)論壇(下半月);2010年08期

4 蘭生明;;內(nèi)隱攻擊性的測(cè)量方法概述[J];新西部(理論版);2012年04期

5 王健;王麗娜;孟慶躍;;主觀幸福感測(cè)量方法及其影響因素研究[J];中國(guó)社會(huì)醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2008年04期

6 閆云霞;王啟成;李麗濤;;學(xué)業(yè)拖延測(cè)量的研究綜述[J];社會(huì)心理科學(xué);2012年02期

7 孫湖!163357;起跑器安裝方法小改進(jìn)[J];中國(guó)學(xué)校體育;2000年04期

8 丁愛華;;讓思維轉(zhuǎn)個(gè)彎[J];高中數(shù)理化(高二版);2007年05期

9 陸慶五;;人類學(xué)測(cè)量方法的重大革新[J];化石;1993年04期

10 亞·帕·莫爾卓娃;我怎樣在一年級(jí)和二年級(jí)里教長(zhǎng)度和重量[J];江蘇教育;1953年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 王占良;;涉及參數(shù)測(cè)量方法的充分公開問題探討[A];2013年中華全國(guó)專利代理人協(xié)會(huì)年會(huì)暨第四屆知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)論壇論文匯編第二部分[C];2013年

2 張志廣;周彥博;徐建一;;微循環(huán)血流速度測(cè)量方法的研究[A];首屆中國(guó)儀器儀表學(xué)會(huì)醫(yī)療儀器分會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];1993年

3 徐燕新;吳仁祥;;懸高精確測(cè)量方法[A];礦山建設(shè)工程技術(shù)新進(jìn)展——2008全國(guó)礦山建設(shè)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議文集（下）[C];2008年

4 胡清國(guó);;高等級(jí)公路放線測(cè)量方法及分析[A];全國(guó)城市公路學(xué)會(huì)第二十三次學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2014年

5 高指林;胡云峰;徐玉強(qiáng);楊嘯;韓曉康;;大型鋼結(jié)構(gòu)制造中的測(cè)量方法淺析[A];'2012中國(guó)鋼結(jié)構(gòu)行業(yè)大會(huì)論文集[C];2012年

6 孫靈霞;李炬;魏肯堂;;環(huán)內(nèi)止口間隙寬度的ICT精確測(cè)量方法[A];中國(guó)工程物理研究院科技年報(bào)（2000）[C];2000年

7 王者福;付嵐冰;張蓬洲;;使用雙樣品的電子自旋共振定量測(cè)量方法[A];第七屆全國(guó)波譜學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文摘要集[C];1992年

8 戴景民;王強(qiáng);辛春鎖;;接觸式多參數(shù)動(dòng)態(tài)熱物性測(cè)量方法綜述[A];2008中國(guó)儀器儀表與測(cè)控技術(shù)進(jìn)展大會(huì)論文集（Ⅲ）[C];2008年

9 楊德順;魏愛軍;;信號(hào)源的復(fù)反射系數(shù)Γ_g的兩種測(cè)量方法[A];1989年全國(guó)微波會(huì)議論文集（上）[C];1989年

10 張登攀;朱紅麗;;現(xiàn)代生產(chǎn)系統(tǒng)中的網(wǎng)格化集成測(cè)量方法[A];第八屆全國(guó)信息獲取與處理學(xué)術(shù)會(huì)議論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 滕奉濤;網(wǎng)絡(luò)應(yīng)用層時(shí)延測(cè)量方法比較研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2011年

2 趙汝芹;服務(wù)質(zhì)量測(cè)量方法及其應(yīng)用研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

3 王黨樹;轉(zhuǎn)子徑向振動(dòng)測(cè)量方法的研究[D];西安理工大學(xué);2007年

4 侯正清;高速公路行駛車輛信息測(cè)量方法的研究[D];哈爾濱工業(yè)大學(xué);2009年

5 李雪蓮;詞匯復(fù)雜度三種測(cè)量方法的對(duì)比分析[D];南京工業(yè)大學(xué);2013年

6 許曉東;基于機(jī)器視覺的發(fā)動(dòng)機(jī)凸輪軸三維測(cè)量方法研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2008年

7 潘小林;生物質(zhì)灰“除塵特性”及測(cè)量方法的研究[D];華北電力大學(xué);2014年

本文編號(hào)：2217681