英汉双语心理词典中英语单词存储单位及其影响因素研究
|
摘要
双语心理词典指掌握或学习两门语言的人的大脑中表征第一语言(母语)和第二语言词汇各个方面的心理仓库。它主要研究学习者大脑中的第一和第二语言词汇是如何存储和检索的。目前,许多母语为汉语的人在学习英语。与之有关的众多研究问题引起了人们的兴趣。其中的一个热点问题就是在英汉双语心理词典中英语(二语)单词是如何存储的。就这个问题来说,涉及语音、形态、语义、拼写等方面的表征。本论文主要通过四个相关的心理语言学及神经语言学实验,研究了与拼写表征有关的英语单词在英汉双语心理词典中的存储单位及其影响因素,共分六章。第一章为绪论,简要介绍了本论文的选题背景、研究目的及问题、研究范围与方法以及研究布局等。第二章为文献综述。在总结前人相关研究的基础上,认为就英语单词存储单位的研究结果来说存在着矛盾,造成这一矛盾现象的原因是没有考虑到影响英语单词存储单位的内部因素和外部因素。在第三章中,我们利用第一个词汇命名实验,初步探索了英语单词在英汉双语心理词典中的存储单位,结果发现不同类型的英语单词是以不同的形式存储的:复合词和派生词是以词素的形式,而屈折词则是以整词的形式。在第四章中,我们利用第二个词汇名词实验,研究了影响英语单词在英汉双语心理词典中存储单位的内部因素,分为三个部分。第一部分为语义透明度效应研究,发现就英语复合词来说,不存在语义透明度效应。第二部分调查了英语单词的词长效应,数据分析表明在英汉双语心理词典中存在着词长效应。第三部分的词性效应研究表明就整体来说存在着词性效应,尤其是在存储多词素英语单词是。第五章研究了影响英语单词在英汉双语心理词典中存储单位的外部因素,分为两部分。在第一部分,我们利用第三个词汇命名实验研究了英语水平对英语单词存储的影响,结果表明学习者的二语水平不能成为影响英语单词存储单位的因素。在第二部分,我们利用ERP实验调查了英语单词存储的熟悉度效应,数据分析表明在英汉双语心理词典中存在着英语单词存储单位的熟悉度效应。本论文的最后一章为结束语。首先总结了本研究的发现,在此基础上构建了研究英语单词存储单位的研究模式。此外还讨论了本研究的意义和不足之处。最后指出本研究为以后进一步更精确地研究英语单词在英汉双语心理词典中的存储单位提出了更多的研究问题。
Bilingual mental lexicon refers to the mental repository of all representations that are intrinsically related to L1 and L2 words. It mainly studies how L1 and L2 words are stored and retrieved in an L2 Learner’s brain. Nowadays many people whose mother tongue is Chinese are learning English as their second language with the development of human society. Correspondingly, numerous research questions spring up rapidly in the field. Among them, how English (L2) words are stored and retrieved in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon holds much attraction from the people interested in second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and other fields.
The present dissertation studies the storage units of English words and their corresponding influencing factors in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon based on the data obtained from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic experiments. It is divided into six chapters. The first chapter mainly introduces the theoretical background and context related to mental lexicon, especially to English-Chinese bilingual menta lexicon, and presents the research questions, which serves as a theoretical basis for the present study. Chapter two is literature review. The previous studies of the storage units related to L1 and L2 words, especially to English words as L2 words indicate that there exist contradictory findings in previous studies. Based on the review, we hold that the contradictory findings result from the lack of the consideration of influencing factors which can be discussed from two aspects: internal factors and external factors. In the third chapter, we conduct the first lexical naming experiment to explore the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon. Data analyses show that in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon, some English words are stored in morphemes, while others as whole words, and that the storage model of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon is a mixed one. The following chapter is devoted to the internal factors influencing the English word storage in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon with the help of the second lexical naming experiment. It mainly explores the effects of semantic transparency, word length effects and the effects of word classes in storing English words in an L2 learner’s brain. The experimental studies demonstrate that semantic transparency of English compound words and word classes of mono-morphemic English words have no significant effects on their storage units, and that word length of English words and word classes of poly-morphemic English words influence their storage units significantly. Chapter five investigates the external factors that influence the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon,which indicates that a learner’s English proficiency has no significant effects on the storage of English words, however, an English learner’s familiairty with English words influences the storage of L2 words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon significantly. Chapter six is conclusion. We summarize our findings at first. Based on the findings, we establish the model for studying the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon. Then the significance of the present study is discussed from theoretical and practical points of view. Meanwhile, the weak points of the present study are discussed. Finally we argue that the present dissertation acturally offers more questions in the present paper for further studies in the field.
Bilingual mental lexicon refers to the mental repository of all representations that are intrinsically related to L1 and L2 words. It mainly studies how L1 and L2 words are stored and retrieved in an L2 Learner’s brain. Nowadays many people whose mother tongue is Chinese are learning English as their second language with the development of human society. Correspondingly, numerous research questions spring up rapidly in the field. Among them, how English (L2) words are stored and retrieved in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon holds much attraction from the people interested in second language acquisition, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and other fields.
The present dissertation studies the storage units of English words and their corresponding influencing factors in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon based on the data obtained from psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic experiments. It is divided into six chapters. The first chapter mainly introduces the theoretical background and context related to mental lexicon, especially to English-Chinese bilingual menta lexicon, and presents the research questions, which serves as a theoretical basis for the present study. Chapter two is literature review. The previous studies of the storage units related to L1 and L2 words, especially to English words as L2 words indicate that there exist contradictory findings in previous studies. Based on the review, we hold that the contradictory findings result from the lack of the consideration of influencing factors which can be discussed from two aspects: internal factors and external factors. In the third chapter, we conduct the first lexical naming experiment to explore the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon. Data analyses show that in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon, some English words are stored in morphemes, while others as whole words, and that the storage model of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon is a mixed one. The following chapter is devoted to the internal factors influencing the English word storage in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon with the help of the second lexical naming experiment. It mainly explores the effects of semantic transparency, word length effects and the effects of word classes in storing English words in an L2 learner’s brain. The experimental studies demonstrate that semantic transparency of English compound words and word classes of mono-morphemic English words have no significant effects on their storage units, and that word length of English words and word classes of poly-morphemic English words influence their storage units significantly. Chapter five investigates the external factors that influence the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon,which indicates that a learner’s English proficiency has no significant effects on the storage of English words, however, an English learner’s familiairty with English words influences the storage of L2 words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon significantly. Chapter six is conclusion. We summarize our findings at first. Based on the findings, we establish the model for studying the storage units of English words in English-Chinese bilingual mental lexicon. Then the significance of the present study is discussed from theoretical and practical points of view. Meanwhile, the weak points of the present study are discussed. Finally we argue that the present dissertation acturally offers more questions in the present paper for further studies in the field.
引文
[1] Abu-Rabia, S. & Awwad, J. 2004. Morphological structures in visual word recognition: the case of Arabic[J]. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(3): 321-336.
[2] Aitchison, J. 1987. Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon[M]. Basil Blackwell.
[3] Altick, R. D. 1963. The art of literary research[M]. New York: W.W. North & Company, INC.
[4] Bachoud-Levi, A-C. & Dupoux, E. 1998. Where is the length effect? A crosslinguistic study of speech production [J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3): 331-346.
[5] Bonin, P. 2004. Mental lexicon:“some words to talk about words”[M]. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
[6] Brauer, M. 1998. Stroop interference in bilinguals: the role of similarity between the two languages[A]. Foreign Language Learning[C], (ed) by Alice F. Healy & Lyle E.Bourne. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties.
[7] Caramazza, A., Landenna, A. & Romani, C. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology[J]. Cognition, 28(3): 297-332.
[8] Carroll, D. W. 1999. Psychology of language[M]. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole publishing Company.
[9] de Groot, A. M. B. & Nas, G. L. J. 1991. Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1): 90-123.
[10] Diependaele, K., Sandra, D. & Grainger, J. 2009. Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: the case of prefixed words[J]. Memory & Cognition, 37(6): 895-908.
[11] Dunabeitia, J. A., Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. 2008. Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 1002-1020.
[12] Ellis, R. 1983. Understanding second language acquisition[M].Oxford University Press.
[13] Ellis, R. 1995. Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings [J]. Applied Linguistics, 16(4): 409-441.
[14] Emmorey, K. D. & Fromkin, V. A. 1990. The mental lexicon [A]. Language: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. III, Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects [C], (ed) by Frederick J. Newmeyer. Cambridge: CUP.
[15] Eriksen, C. W., Pollock, M. D. & Montague, W. E. 1970. Implicit speech: mechanisms in perceptual encoding[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84(3): 502-507.
[16] Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. 2007. Compound words and structure in the lexicon[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7): 953-1000.
[17] Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A. & Forster, K. I. 2005. Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: principles of lexical organization in a given language[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6): 1293–1326.
[18] Garnham, A. 1985. Psycholinguistics:central topics[M]. Cambridge: CUP.
[19] Gold, B. T. & Rastle, K. 2007. Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12): 1983-1993.
[20] Hauk, O. & Pulvermüller, F. 2004. Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(5): 1090-1103.
[21] Jacobsen, T., Schroger, E., Winkler, I. & Horvath, J. 2005. Familiarity affects the processing of task-irrelevant auditory deviance[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11): 1704-1713.
[22] Jiang, N. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language[J]. Applied Linguistics, 21(1): 47-77.
[23] Jiang, N. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing[J]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4): 603-634.
[24] Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V. & Tonciulescu, K. 2008. Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: a masked priming study of Russian nouns[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(6): 800-823.
[25] Kess, J. F. 1992. Psycholinguistics: psychology, linguistics, and the study of natural language[M]. Amsterdan and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[26] Klapp, S. T., Anderson, W. G. & Berrian, R. W. 1973. Implicit speech in reading, reconsidered[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2): 368-374.
[27] Kolers, P. A. 1963. Interlingual word associations[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(4): 291-300.
[28] Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2): 149-74.
[29] Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. & Baayen, R. H. 2008. Morpholigical dynamics in compound processing[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 1089-1132.
[30] Lavric, A., Clapp, A. & Rastle, K. 2007. ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: a masked priming study[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5): 866-877.
[31] Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[32] Libben, G. 2000. Representation and processing in the second language lexicon: the homogeneity hypothesis[A]. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory[C], (ed) by John Archibald. Blackwell Publishers.
[33] Lovatt, P., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. 2000. The word-length effect and disyllabic words[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(1):1-22.
[34] Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M. & Randall, B. 2008. Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning[J]. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(3): 394-421.
[35] Navracsics, J. 2007. Word classes and the bilingual mental lexicon[A]. Second Language Lexical Processes --- Applied linguistics and Psycholinguistic Perspectives[C]. (ed) by Zsolt Lengyel & Judit Navracsics. Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
[36] Neath, I., Bireta,T. J. & Surprenant, A. M.. 2003. The time-based word length effect and stimulus set specificity[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2): 430-434.
[37] New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C. & Brysbaert, M. 2006. Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: new evidence from the English lexicon project[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1): 45-52.
[38] Peng, D., Liu, Y. & Wang, C. 1999. How is access representation organized? the relation of polymorphemic words and their morphemes in Chinese[A]. Reading Chinese Script: A Cognitive Analysis[C], (ed) by Wang Jian, Inhoff Albrecht W. & Chen Hsuan-chih. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Publishers.
[39] Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. 2008. Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect?[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(1): 69-92.
[40] Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., Eckardt, B. V. & Feldman, L. B. 1984. Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals[J]. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior (23): 23-38.
[41] Rastle, K. & Davis, M. H. 2008. Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 942-971.
[42] Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. 2000. Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study[J]. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15(4/5): 507-537.
[43] Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6): 1090–1098.
[44] Rubin, G. S., Becker, C. A. & Freeman, R. H. 1979. Morphological structure and its effects on visual word recognition [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6): 757-767.
[45] Rueckl, J. G. & Aicher, K. 2008. Are CORNER and BROTHER morphologically complex? Not in the long term[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 972-1001.
[46] Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning[M]. Oxford: OUP.
[47] Taft, M. 1981. Prefixed stripping revisited [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3): 289-297.
[48] Witalisz, E. 2007. Vocabulary assessment in writing: lexical statistics[A]. Second Language Lexical Processes --- Applied linguistics and PsycholinguisticPerspectives[C]. (ed) by Zsolt Lengyel & Judit Navracsics. Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
[49] Wolter, B. 2001. Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon[J]. SSLA, (23): 41-69.
[50] Zhao, Huicheng. 2000. Word structure and vocabulary acquisition: theory and application to mandarin chinese as a second/foreign language[D]. Florida: University of Florida.
[51] Zyzik, E. & Azevedo, C. 2009. Word class distinctions in second language acquisition[J]. SSLA, 31: 1-29.
[52]陈宝国、彭聃龄,1998,词的具体性对词汇识别的影响[J],心理学报(4):387-393。
[53]陈国宝、尤文平、周会霞,2007,汉语词汇习得的年龄效应:语义假设的证据[J],心理学报(1):9-17。
[54]陈士法,1999,第二语言词汇习得和双语心理字典[J],西安外国语学院学报(4): 2-6。
[55]陈士法,2006,从二语词汇习得的角度看双语心理字典中的语义表征[J],外国语言文学(1):5-11。
[56]陈士法,2008,英汉双语心理词典表征理论新探[J],集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(3):58-62。
[57]陈新葵、张积家,2008,汉语动词、名词认知的影响因素比较[J],华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(4):119-123。
[58]陈新葵、张积家、方燕红,2005,动、名词的认知及其脑机制[J],华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(6):123-129。
[59]崔刚,1994,布鲁卡氏失语症实例研究[J],外语教学与研究(1):27-33。
[60]丁国盛,2001,中英双语者词汇表征及加工的脑机制研究[D],北京:北京师范大学博士论文。
[61]董燕萍,1998a,关于心理语言学中双语词汇记忆的试验手段[J],解放军外语学院学报(5):1-8。
[62]董燕萍,1998b,双语心理词典的共享(分布式)非对成模型[J],现代外语(3):1-29。
[63]董燕萍,2007,心理语言学与外语教学[M]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
[64]董燕萍、桂诗春,2002,关于双语心理词典的表征结构[J],外国语(4):23-29。
[65]方燕红、张积家,2007,名词和动词加工的认知神经机制[J],现代生物医学进展(10):1557-1549。
[66]方杰、李小健,2009,复合词在言语产生的词汇通达中的表征[J],心理科学进展(6):1116-1123。
[67]高航,2003,语言类型学中的词类问题[J],外国语言文学(1):3-8。
[68]高立群、黎静,2005,日本留学生汉日同形词词汇通达的实验研究[J],世界汉语教学(3):96-105。
[69]高立群,孟凌,刘兆静, 2003,日本留学生心理词典表征结构的实验研究[J],当代语言学(2):120-132。
[70]龚嵘,2007,从大学英语学习者词汇错误看认知因素对二语词库表征的影响[J],外语界(1):39-46。
[71]顾介鑫、张强,2005,名动两重分离现象的神经电生理学研究述评[J],外语研究(5):17-21。
[72]桂诗春,2007,新编心理语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[73]郭桃梅、彭聃龄,2002,非熟练中——英双语者的第二语言的语义通达机制[J],心理学报(1):23-28。
[74]郭桃梅、彭聃龄、祁志强、徐伦,2004,语音的自动激活及其在汉字语义通达中的作用[J],心理学探新(1):31-33。
[75]韩仲谦,2005,心理词汇的语用研究及其对二语词汇教学的意义[D]。上海:上海外国语大学。
[76]黄洪志,2007,词长因素及其对英语词汇学习影响的实证研究[J],外国语言文学(1):28-32。
[77]黄惠民,2008,英文阅读语音介入的多元功能[J],齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6):119-121。
[78]黄远振,2001,词的形态理据与词汇习得的相关性[J],外语教学与研究(6):430-435。
[79]金永百,1987,英语词类的不确定性[J],现代外语(2):37-42。
[80]李毕琴、徐展、徐丽,2007,工作记忆中的词长效应[J],心理科学进展(5):768-773。
[81]李荣宝、彭聃龄,1999,双语者的语义表征[J],现代外语(3):255-272。
[82]李荣宝、彭聃龄,2002,双语表征研究中存在的问题及其解决方法[J],当代语言学(4):279-292。
[83]李荣宝、彭聃龄、郭桃梅,2003,汉英语义通达过程的事件相关电位研究[J],心理学报(3):309-316。
[84]李荣宝、彭聃龄、李嵬,2000,双语者第二语言表征的形成与发展[J],外国语(4): 2-11。
[85]李荣宝、彭聃龄、王春茂,2001,语言认知加工过程中的早期皮层电位[J],心理科学(6):667-672。
[86]林承璋,1998,英语词汇学引论[M]。武汉:武汉大学出版社。
[87]林泳海、钱琴珍、张必隐,2003,语音加工理论的演变[J],心理科学(4):729-730。
[88]林正军、杨忠,2005,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J],外语教学与研究(5):362-367。
[89]罗跃嘉主编,2006,认知神经科学教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
[90]吕文澎,2000,英语难词记忆法的实验研究[J],外语教学与研究(5):362-367。
[91]吕文澎,2001,英语难词记忆法:调查与分析[J],外语教学(3):75-80。
[92]毛善平、尤志、余绍祖、段申汉、王国瑾、冯学锋,2005,急性脑血管病患者汉语语法缺失的词类理解障碍[J],中华物理医学与康复杂志(7):402-404。
[93]孟丽艳,2003,中英双语者词汇加工的EEG研究[D],北京:北京师范大学博士论文。
[94]宁宁、卢春明、彭聃龄、马振玲、丁国盛,2007,口吃者的言语计划缺陷——来自词长效应的证据[J],心理学报(2):215-224。
[95]彭聃龄、王春茂,1997,汉字加工的基本单元:来自笔画数效应和部件效应的证据[J],心理学报(1):7-12。
[96]舒华、柏晓利、韩在柱、毕彦超,2003,词汇表征和加工理论及其认知神经心理学证据[J],应用心理学(2):41-45。
[97]孙燕青、董奇,2001,在多媒体语境条件下词类对儿童英语词汇学习效果的影响[J],心理发展与教育(4):47-51。
[98]王翠翔、彭聃龄,1988,中-英双语读者词汇表征的研究(I)[J],心理学报(4):351-358。
[99]王翠翔、彭聃龄,1989,中-英双语读者词汇表征的研究(II)[J],心理学报(1):61-67。
[100]王春茂、彭聃龄,1999,合成词加工中的词频、词素频率及语义透明度[J],心理学报(3):266-273。
[101]王春茂、彭聃龄,2000,重复启动作业中词的透明度的作用[J],心理学报(2):127-321。
[102]王丽燕、丁锦红,2003,工作记忆中的语音回路与阅读理解的关系[J],心理科学进展(3):303-309。
[103]王燕,2004,汉语儿童阅读能力发展中的语音加工技能研究[J],心理科学进展(4):489-499。
[104]魏景汉、罗跃嘉,2002,认知事件相关脑电位教程[M]。北京:经济日报出版社。
[105]魏向清,2009,多学科视域下二语心理词库研究的新探索[J],外语教学与研究(6):474-476。
[106]肖旭月,2001,语音表征在取词拼写过程中的作用——中国学生英语拼写错误的心理语言学分析[J],外语教学与研究(6):422-429。
[107]肖旭月,2003,英汉语视觉词汇提取中的语音效应[J],外语教学与研究(2):120-125。
[108]许凤、张文忠,2008,关于词类因素在二语附带词汇习得中的研究[J],长沙大学学报(4):108-109。
[109]杨静、王立新、彭聃龄,2004,第二语言获得的年龄和熟练程度对双语表征的影响[J],当代语言学(4):321-327。
[110]杨亦鸣、曹明,2003,国外大脑词库研究概观[J],当代语言学(3):90-108。
[111]杨亦鸣、耿立波,2008,基于ERPs实验的二语词汇能力心理现实性研究[J],外语教学与研究(3):163-169。
[112]喻柏林、曹河圻,1992,笔画数配置对汉字认知的影响[J],心理科学(4):5-10。
[113]张厚粲、舒华,1989,汉字读音中音似与形似的启动效应[J],心理学报(3):284-289。
[114]张积家、王惠萍,1996,汉字的正字法深度与阅读时间的研究[J],心理学报(4):337-344。
[115]张琦,2006,影响心理词典提取的因素与英语词汇学习[J],当代经理人(21):1677-1678。
[116]张钦、丁锦红、郭春彦、王争艳,2003,名词与动词加工的ERP差异[J],心理学报(6):753-759。
[117]张珊珊,2006,通过单词联想实验探索二语词汇结构[J],现代外语(2):164-171。
[118]张绍全,2009,国外多义性研究综观[J],四川外国语学院学报(2):46-51。
[119]张淑静,2003,从反应类型看词汇习得[J],外语教学与研究(4):275-281。
[120]张武田、冯玲,1992,关于汉字识别单位的研究[J],心理学报(4):379-385。
[121]张韵斐,1987,现代英语词汇学概论[M]。北京:北京师范大学出版社。
[122]张运红、郭春彦,2008,知觉和语义表征关系的ERP研究[J],科学通报(24):3086-3095。
[123]赵俊华、张大均,2008,思维风格影响英语词汇心理表征的途径和范围[J],心理科学(5):1090-1093。
[2] Aitchison, J. 1987. Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon[M]. Basil Blackwell.
[3] Altick, R. D. 1963. The art of literary research[M]. New York: W.W. North & Company, INC.
[4] Bachoud-Levi, A-C. & Dupoux, E. 1998. Where is the length effect? A crosslinguistic study of speech production [J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 39(3): 331-346.
[5] Bonin, P. 2004. Mental lexicon:“some words to talk about words”[M]. New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
[6] Brauer, M. 1998. Stroop interference in bilinguals: the role of similarity between the two languages[A]. Foreign Language Learning[C], (ed) by Alice F. Healy & Lyle E.Bourne. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associaties.
[7] Caramazza, A., Landenna, A. & Romani, C. 1988. Lexical access and inflectional morphology[J]. Cognition, 28(3): 297-332.
[8] Carroll, D. W. 1999. Psychology of language[M]. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole publishing Company.
[9] de Groot, A. M. B. & Nas, G. L. J. 1991. Lexical representation of cognates and noncognates in compound bilinguals[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1): 90-123.
[10] Diependaele, K., Sandra, D. & Grainger, J. 2009. Semantic transparency and masked morphological priming: the case of prefixed words[J]. Memory & Cognition, 37(6): 895-908.
[11] Dunabeitia, J. A., Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. 2008. Does darkness lead to happiness? Masked suffix priming effects[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 1002-1020.
[12] Ellis, R. 1983. Understanding second language acquisition[M].Oxford University Press.
[13] Ellis, R. 1995. Modified oral input and the acquisition of word meanings [J]. Applied Linguistics, 16(4): 409-441.
[14] Emmorey, K. D. & Fromkin, V. A. 1990. The mental lexicon [A]. Language: The Cambridge Survey, Vol. III, Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects [C], (ed) by Frederick J. Newmeyer. Cambridge: CUP.
[15] Eriksen, C. W., Pollock, M. D. & Montague, W. E. 1970. Implicit speech: mechanisms in perceptual encoding[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 84(3): 502-507.
[16] Fiorentino, R. & Poeppel, D. 2007. Compound words and structure in the lexicon[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(7): 953-1000.
[17] Frost, R., Kugler, T., Deutsch, A. & Forster, K. I. 2005. Orthographic structure versus morphological structure: principles of lexical organization in a given language[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(6): 1293–1326.
[18] Garnham, A. 1985. Psycholinguistics:central topics[M]. Cambridge: CUP.
[19] Gold, B. T. & Rastle, K. 2007. Neural correlates of morphological decomposition during visual word recognition[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12): 1983-1993.
[20] Hauk, O. & Pulvermüller, F. 2004. Effects of word length and frequency on the human event-related potential[J]. Clinical Neurophysiology, 115(5): 1090-1103.
[21] Jacobsen, T., Schroger, E., Winkler, I. & Horvath, J. 2005. Familiarity affects the processing of task-irrelevant auditory deviance[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(11): 1704-1713.
[22] Jiang, N. 2000. Lexical representation and development in a second language[J]. Applied Linguistics, 21(1): 47-77.
[23] Jiang, N. 2004. Morphological insensitivity in second language processing[J]. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25(4): 603-634.
[24] Kazanina, N., Dukova-Zheleva, G., Geber, D., Kharlamov, V. & Tonciulescu, K. 2008. Decomposition into multiple morphemes during lexical access: a masked priming study of Russian nouns[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(6): 800-823.
[25] Kess, J. F. 1992. Psycholinguistics: psychology, linguistics, and the study of natural language[M]. Amsterdan and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[26] Klapp, S. T., Anderson, W. G. & Berrian, R. W. 1973. Implicit speech in reading, reconsidered[J]. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 100(2): 368-374.
[27] Kolers, P. A. 1963. Interlingual word associations[J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(4): 291-300.
[28] Kroll, J. F. & Stewart, E. 1994. Category interference in translation and picture naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations[J]. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(2): 149-74.
[29] Kuperman, V., Bertram, R. & Baayen, R. H. 2008. Morpholigical dynamics in compound processing[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 1089-1132.
[30] Lavric, A., Clapp, A. & Rastle, K. 2007. ERP evidence of morphological analysis from orthography: a masked priming study[J]. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(5): 866-877.
[31] Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: from intention to articulation [M]. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
[32] Libben, G. 2000. Representation and processing in the second language lexicon: the homogeneity hypothesis[A]. Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory[C], (ed) by John Archibald. Blackwell Publishers.
[33] Lovatt, P., Avons, S. E. & Masterson, J. 2000. The word-length effect and disyllabic words[J]. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A(1):1-22.
[34] Marslen-Wilson, W. D., Bozic, M. & Randall, B. 2008. Early decomposition in visual word recognition: Dissociating morphology, form, and meaning[J]. Language & Cognitive Processes, 23(3): 394-421.
[35] Navracsics, J. 2007. Word classes and the bilingual mental lexicon[A]. Second Language Lexical Processes --- Applied linguistics and Psycholinguistic Perspectives[C]. (ed) by Zsolt Lengyel & Judit Navracsics. Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
[36] Neath, I., Bireta,T. J. & Surprenant, A. M.. 2003. The time-based word length effect and stimulus set specificity[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(2): 430-434.
[37] New, B., Ferrand, L., Pallier, C. & Brysbaert, M. 2006. Reexamining the word length effect in visual word recognition: new evidence from the English lexicon project[J]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(1): 45-52.
[38] Peng, D., Liu, Y. & Wang, C. 1999. How is access representation organized? the relation of polymorphemic words and their morphemes in Chinese[A]. Reading Chinese Script: A Cognitive Analysis[C], (ed) by Wang Jian, Inhoff Albrecht W. & Chen Hsuan-chih. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Publishers.
[39] Perea, M. & Carreiras, M. 2008. Do orthotactics and phonology constrain the transposed-letter effect?[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(1): 69-92.
[40] Potter, M. C., So, K.-F., Eckardt, B. V. & Feldman, L. B. 1984. Lexical and conceptual representation in beginning and proficient bilinguals[J]. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior (23): 23-38.
[41] Rastle, K. & Davis, M. H. 2008. Morphological decomposition based on the analysis of orthography[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 942-971.
[42] Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., Marslen-Wilson, W. D. & Tyler, L. K. 2000. Morphological and semantic effects in visual word recognition: A time-course study[J]. Language & Cognitive Processes, 15(4/5): 507-537.
[43] Rastle, K., Davis, M. H., & New, B. (2004). The broth in my brother’s brothel: Morpho-orthographic segmentation in visual word recognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(6): 1090–1098.
[44] Rubin, G. S., Becker, C. A. & Freeman, R. H. 1979. Morphological structure and its effects on visual word recognition [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18(6): 757-767.
[45] Rueckl, J. G. & Aicher, K. 2008. Are CORNER and BROTHER morphologically complex? Not in the long term[J]. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(7/8): 972-1001.
[46] Spolsky, B. 1989. Conditions for Second Language Learning[M]. Oxford: OUP.
[47] Taft, M. 1981. Prefixed stripping revisited [J]. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20(3): 289-297.
[48] Witalisz, E. 2007. Vocabulary assessment in writing: lexical statistics[A]. Second Language Lexical Processes --- Applied linguistics and PsycholinguisticPerspectives[C]. (ed) by Zsolt Lengyel & Judit Navracsics. Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
[49] Wolter, B. 2001. Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon[J]. SSLA, (23): 41-69.
[50] Zhao, Huicheng. 2000. Word structure and vocabulary acquisition: theory and application to mandarin chinese as a second/foreign language[D]. Florida: University of Florida.
[51] Zyzik, E. & Azevedo, C. 2009. Word class distinctions in second language acquisition[J]. SSLA, 31: 1-29.
[52]陈宝国、彭聃龄,1998,词的具体性对词汇识别的影响[J],心理学报(4):387-393。
[53]陈国宝、尤文平、周会霞,2007,汉语词汇习得的年龄效应:语义假设的证据[J],心理学报(1):9-17。
[54]陈士法,1999,第二语言词汇习得和双语心理字典[J],西安外国语学院学报(4): 2-6。
[55]陈士法,2006,从二语词汇习得的角度看双语心理字典中的语义表征[J],外国语言文学(1):5-11。
[56]陈士法,2008,英汉双语心理词典表征理论新探[J],集美大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(3):58-62。
[57]陈新葵、张积家,2008,汉语动词、名词认知的影响因素比较[J],华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(4):119-123。
[58]陈新葵、张积家、方燕红,2005,动、名词的认知及其脑机制[J],华南师范大学学报(社会科学版)(6):123-129。
[59]崔刚,1994,布鲁卡氏失语症实例研究[J],外语教学与研究(1):27-33。
[60]丁国盛,2001,中英双语者词汇表征及加工的脑机制研究[D],北京:北京师范大学博士论文。
[61]董燕萍,1998a,关于心理语言学中双语词汇记忆的试验手段[J],解放军外语学院学报(5):1-8。
[62]董燕萍,1998b,双语心理词典的共享(分布式)非对成模型[J],现代外语(3):1-29。
[63]董燕萍,2007,心理语言学与外语教学[M]。北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
[64]董燕萍、桂诗春,2002,关于双语心理词典的表征结构[J],外国语(4):23-29。
[65]方燕红、张积家,2007,名词和动词加工的认知神经机制[J],现代生物医学进展(10):1557-1549。
[66]方杰、李小健,2009,复合词在言语产生的词汇通达中的表征[J],心理科学进展(6):1116-1123。
[67]高航,2003,语言类型学中的词类问题[J],外国语言文学(1):3-8。
[68]高立群、黎静,2005,日本留学生汉日同形词词汇通达的实验研究[J],世界汉语教学(3):96-105。
[69]高立群,孟凌,刘兆静, 2003,日本留学生心理词典表征结构的实验研究[J],当代语言学(2):120-132。
[70]龚嵘,2007,从大学英语学习者词汇错误看认知因素对二语词库表征的影响[J],外语界(1):39-46。
[71]顾介鑫、张强,2005,名动两重分离现象的神经电生理学研究述评[J],外语研究(5):17-21。
[72]桂诗春,2007,新编心理语言学[M]。上海:上海外语教育出版社。
[73]郭桃梅、彭聃龄,2002,非熟练中——英双语者的第二语言的语义通达机制[J],心理学报(1):23-28。
[74]郭桃梅、彭聃龄、祁志强、徐伦,2004,语音的自动激活及其在汉字语义通达中的作用[J],心理学探新(1):31-33。
[75]韩仲谦,2005,心理词汇的语用研究及其对二语词汇教学的意义[D]。上海:上海外国语大学。
[76]黄洪志,2007,词长因素及其对英语词汇学习影响的实证研究[J],外国语言文学(1):28-32。
[77]黄惠民,2008,英文阅读语音介入的多元功能[J],齐齐哈尔大学学报(哲学社会科学版)(6):119-121。
[78]黄远振,2001,词的形态理据与词汇习得的相关性[J],外语教学与研究(6):430-435。
[79]金永百,1987,英语词类的不确定性[J],现代外语(2):37-42。
[80]李毕琴、徐展、徐丽,2007,工作记忆中的词长效应[J],心理科学进展(5):768-773。
[81]李荣宝、彭聃龄,1999,双语者的语义表征[J],现代外语(3):255-272。
[82]李荣宝、彭聃龄,2002,双语表征研究中存在的问题及其解决方法[J],当代语言学(4):279-292。
[83]李荣宝、彭聃龄、郭桃梅,2003,汉英语义通达过程的事件相关电位研究[J],心理学报(3):309-316。
[84]李荣宝、彭聃龄、李嵬,2000,双语者第二语言表征的形成与发展[J],外国语(4): 2-11。
[85]李荣宝、彭聃龄、王春茂,2001,语言认知加工过程中的早期皮层电位[J],心理科学(6):667-672。
[86]林承璋,1998,英语词汇学引论[M]。武汉:武汉大学出版社。
[87]林泳海、钱琴珍、张必隐,2003,语音加工理论的演变[J],心理科学(4):729-730。
[88]林正军、杨忠,2005,一词多义现象的历时和认知解析[J],外语教学与研究(5):362-367。
[89]罗跃嘉主编,2006,认知神经科学教程[M]。北京:北京大学出版社。
[90]吕文澎,2000,英语难词记忆法的实验研究[J],外语教学与研究(5):362-367。
[91]吕文澎,2001,英语难词记忆法:调查与分析[J],外语教学(3):75-80。
[92]毛善平、尤志、余绍祖、段申汉、王国瑾、冯学锋,2005,急性脑血管病患者汉语语法缺失的词类理解障碍[J],中华物理医学与康复杂志(7):402-404。
[93]孟丽艳,2003,中英双语者词汇加工的EEG研究[D],北京:北京师范大学博士论文。
[94]宁宁、卢春明、彭聃龄、马振玲、丁国盛,2007,口吃者的言语计划缺陷——来自词长效应的证据[J],心理学报(2):215-224。
[95]彭聃龄、王春茂,1997,汉字加工的基本单元:来自笔画数效应和部件效应的证据[J],心理学报(1):7-12。
[96]舒华、柏晓利、韩在柱、毕彦超,2003,词汇表征和加工理论及其认知神经心理学证据[J],应用心理学(2):41-45。
[97]孙燕青、董奇,2001,在多媒体语境条件下词类对儿童英语词汇学习效果的影响[J],心理发展与教育(4):47-51。
[98]王翠翔、彭聃龄,1988,中-英双语读者词汇表征的研究(I)[J],心理学报(4):351-358。
[99]王翠翔、彭聃龄,1989,中-英双语读者词汇表征的研究(II)[J],心理学报(1):61-67。
[100]王春茂、彭聃龄,1999,合成词加工中的词频、词素频率及语义透明度[J],心理学报(3):266-273。
[101]王春茂、彭聃龄,2000,重复启动作业中词的透明度的作用[J],心理学报(2):127-321。
[102]王丽燕、丁锦红,2003,工作记忆中的语音回路与阅读理解的关系[J],心理科学进展(3):303-309。
[103]王燕,2004,汉语儿童阅读能力发展中的语音加工技能研究[J],心理科学进展(4):489-499。
[104]魏景汉、罗跃嘉,2002,认知事件相关脑电位教程[M]。北京:经济日报出版社。
[105]魏向清,2009,多学科视域下二语心理词库研究的新探索[J],外语教学与研究(6):474-476。
[106]肖旭月,2001,语音表征在取词拼写过程中的作用——中国学生英语拼写错误的心理语言学分析[J],外语教学与研究(6):422-429。
[107]肖旭月,2003,英汉语视觉词汇提取中的语音效应[J],外语教学与研究(2):120-125。
[108]许凤、张文忠,2008,关于词类因素在二语附带词汇习得中的研究[J],长沙大学学报(4):108-109。
[109]杨静、王立新、彭聃龄,2004,第二语言获得的年龄和熟练程度对双语表征的影响[J],当代语言学(4):321-327。
[110]杨亦鸣、曹明,2003,国外大脑词库研究概观[J],当代语言学(3):90-108。
[111]杨亦鸣、耿立波,2008,基于ERPs实验的二语词汇能力心理现实性研究[J],外语教学与研究(3):163-169。
[112]喻柏林、曹河圻,1992,笔画数配置对汉字认知的影响[J],心理科学(4):5-10。
[113]张厚粲、舒华,1989,汉字读音中音似与形似的启动效应[J],心理学报(3):284-289。
[114]张积家、王惠萍,1996,汉字的正字法深度与阅读时间的研究[J],心理学报(4):337-344。
[115]张琦,2006,影响心理词典提取的因素与英语词汇学习[J],当代经理人(21):1677-1678。
[116]张钦、丁锦红、郭春彦、王争艳,2003,名词与动词加工的ERP差异[J],心理学报(6):753-759。
[117]张珊珊,2006,通过单词联想实验探索二语词汇结构[J],现代外语(2):164-171。
[118]张绍全,2009,国外多义性研究综观[J],四川外国语学院学报(2):46-51。
[119]张淑静,2003,从反应类型看词汇习得[J],外语教学与研究(4):275-281。
[120]张武田、冯玲,1992,关于汉字识别单位的研究[J],心理学报(4):379-385。
[121]张韵斐,1987,现代英语词汇学概论[M]。北京:北京师范大学出版社。
[122]张运红、郭春彦,2008,知觉和语义表征关系的ERP研究[J],科学通报(24):3086-3095。
[123]赵俊华、张大均,2008,思维风格影响英语词汇心理表征的途径和范围[J],心理科学(5):1090-1093。