语块教学模式与大学非英语专业学习者的词汇学习效果：一项实验研究
|
摘要
近年来,外语学习中的语块研究受到了语言学家及外语教师的广泛关注。作为语言习得及语言使用中的“预制板块”和“形式-功能的联合体”,语块为外语教学的有效性打下了基础(Nattinger & DeCarrico,2000)。它有助于内化语法规则,提升语言表达的地道性,减轻语言处理的负担。基于语块的概念,语言学家Lewis (1993:vi)指出“语言是由语法化的词汇组成,而不是由词汇化的语法组成”,并因此提出了新的教学法“词汇法”,建议语言教学要培养学生对语块的意识和使用能力。国内外诸多研究证明“词汇法”对学习者口语表达和写作能力的提高都有很大的帮助。尽管现有文献中有不少研究考察语块学习对学习者词汇能力的影响,但语块模式是否有助于提高外语学习者的词汇深度知识和英语词汇综合应用能力还有待进一步考证。
本研究旨在考察在以主题为单元的大学英语教学中,用语块模式教学和用单个词汇模式教学对EFL学习者词汇学习效果的影响及差异情况,进而考察语块教学模式是否对提高学生英语词汇深度知识和词汇综合运用能力有帮助。具体研究问题包括：1)以语块模式和以单个词汇模式学习单词所产生的词汇学习效果有无差别。2)比起单个词汇模式,语块教学模式是否能提高学习者的词汇深度知识。3)语块教学模式是否能提高学习者的词汇综合运用能力。4)接受了语块教学模式的学习者在词汇学习策略上是否有变化。
为了回答上述问题,本研究采用准试验研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法在西南交通大学进行了一学期的实验。受试者为研究者本人执教的大学非英语专业的两个自然班的学生。一个为实验班,采用语块模式,一个为控制班,采用常规词汇学习模式,即单个词汇模式。实验结束时,借助SPSS软件,通过对所收集数据的描述统计分析来验证假设。
结果表明,实验前两班学生的词汇联想测试成绩并无差别,但在实验结束时,实验班的词汇联想测试的成绩与控制班的成绩存在显著差异；同样,两班实验前的写作水平相当,实验结束时的写作测试显示实验班的写作水平较控制班有显著性提高,说明语块教学模式对学习者的词汇学习效果产生了积极影响,有助于提高学生的词汇深度知识及词汇综合运用能力。问卷调查分析数据显示实验结束时实验班在词汇学习策略方面与控制班有显著差异,较之实验前学习策略也有很大不同,表明语块教学模式能有效帮助学习者更好地运用词汇学习策略,形成良好的语言学习习惯。
Recently the study of lexical chunks in foreign language learning has brought wide concern among linguists and foreign-language teachers. Being important prefabricated patterns and form-function units in language acquisition and language use, lexical chunks serve as effective bases for foreign language teaching (Nattinger & DeCarrico,2000). They help internalize grammatical rules, promote language idiomaticity and save effort in language processing. Resting on lexical-chunk notion, Lewis, a famous linguist, states that "language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalized grammar" (1993:vi), based on which Lewis offers a promising new direction for language teaching:lexical-chunk approach, suggesting that language teaching needs to develop students'awareness of and ability to "chunks". Many researches home and abroad have proved the significance of learning lexical chunks to the improvement of oral communication and writing ability. While there are studies focusing on the effect of chunk learning on the lexical competence, research is needed to stretch the area by further scrutinizing whether lexical-chunk approach can help EFL learners improve their competence in the vocabulary depth knowledge and in the vocabulary productive competence.
The present study investigates the impact of both the Lexical Chunk Teaching Approach (LCTA) and individual words learning (IWL) on EFL learners'learning of new vocabulary items in theme-based teaching, and whether LCTA can help learners improve their competence in the depth knowledge of vocabulary as well as in the integrated use of English vocabulary. Specifically, the study intends to look into the following research questions:1) Are there any differences in EFL learners'learning of English new words by way of LCTA and by way of IWL? 2) Comparing with IWL, does LCTA improve EFL learners'vocabulary depth knowledge (VDK)? 3) Can LCTA help EFL learners promote their vocabulary-productive-competence (VPC) in the use of English words? 4) After taking the LCTA, do EFL learners have any changes in their vocabulary-learning-strategies?
To answer the above research questions, the researcher conducts a quasi-experiment lasting one semester in SWJTU coupled with questionnaire before and after the experiment. The subjects are the non-English major students from two natural classes taught by the researcher herself. One class, as an experimental class (EC), receives LCTA; the other is a control class (CC), in which new words learning is handled in the traditional way, that is IWL. The data collected is analyzed by SPSS (16.0) to testify the hypothesis.
Based on the statistic data analysis, the two classes have no significant difference in Word Associates Test (WAT) and guided writing before the experiment; while after the experiment the students in EC score higher both in WAT and guided writing. So the conclusion can be drawn that LCTA is an effective way of learning vocabulary. Moreover, data of the questionnaire on the vocabulary strategies shows that after the experiment the students in EC use quite different strategies from the ones used by the students in CC. Comparing with the strategies they use before the experiment, the students in EC have changed a lot in their strategy uses after the experiment. Thus the conclusion can be drawn that LCTA has a positive influence on the form of good vocabulary learning strategies.
本研究旨在考察在以主题为单元的大学英语教学中,用语块模式教学和用单个词汇模式教学对EFL学习者词汇学习效果的影响及差异情况,进而考察语块教学模式是否对提高学生英语词汇深度知识和词汇综合运用能力有帮助。具体研究问题包括：1)以语块模式和以单个词汇模式学习单词所产生的词汇学习效果有无差别。2)比起单个词汇模式,语块教学模式是否能提高学习者的词汇深度知识。3)语块教学模式是否能提高学习者的词汇综合运用能力。4)接受了语块教学模式的学习者在词汇学习策略上是否有变化。
为了回答上述问题,本研究采用准试验研究和问卷调查研究相结合的方法在西南交通大学进行了一学期的实验。受试者为研究者本人执教的大学非英语专业的两个自然班的学生。一个为实验班,采用语块模式,一个为控制班,采用常规词汇学习模式,即单个词汇模式。实验结束时,借助SPSS软件,通过对所收集数据的描述统计分析来验证假设。
结果表明,实验前两班学生的词汇联想测试成绩并无差别,但在实验结束时,实验班的词汇联想测试的成绩与控制班的成绩存在显著差异；同样,两班实验前的写作水平相当,实验结束时的写作测试显示实验班的写作水平较控制班有显著性提高,说明语块教学模式对学习者的词汇学习效果产生了积极影响,有助于提高学生的词汇深度知识及词汇综合运用能力。问卷调查分析数据显示实验结束时实验班在词汇学习策略方面与控制班有显著差异,较之实验前学习策略也有很大不同,表明语块教学模式能有效帮助学习者更好地运用词汇学习策略,形成良好的语言学习习惯。
Recently the study of lexical chunks in foreign language learning has brought wide concern among linguists and foreign-language teachers. Being important prefabricated patterns and form-function units in language acquisition and language use, lexical chunks serve as effective bases for foreign language teaching (Nattinger & DeCarrico,2000). They help internalize grammatical rules, promote language idiomaticity and save effort in language processing. Resting on lexical-chunk notion, Lewis, a famous linguist, states that "language consists of grammaticalised lexis, not lexicalized grammar" (1993:vi), based on which Lewis offers a promising new direction for language teaching:lexical-chunk approach, suggesting that language teaching needs to develop students'awareness of and ability to "chunks". Many researches home and abroad have proved the significance of learning lexical chunks to the improvement of oral communication and writing ability. While there are studies focusing on the effect of chunk learning on the lexical competence, research is needed to stretch the area by further scrutinizing whether lexical-chunk approach can help EFL learners improve their competence in the vocabulary depth knowledge and in the vocabulary productive competence.
The present study investigates the impact of both the Lexical Chunk Teaching Approach (LCTA) and individual words learning (IWL) on EFL learners'learning of new vocabulary items in theme-based teaching, and whether LCTA can help learners improve their competence in the depth knowledge of vocabulary as well as in the integrated use of English vocabulary. Specifically, the study intends to look into the following research questions:1) Are there any differences in EFL learners'learning of English new words by way of LCTA and by way of IWL? 2) Comparing with IWL, does LCTA improve EFL learners'vocabulary depth knowledge (VDK)? 3) Can LCTA help EFL learners promote their vocabulary-productive-competence (VPC) in the use of English words? 4) After taking the LCTA, do EFL learners have any changes in their vocabulary-learning-strategies?
To answer the above research questions, the researcher conducts a quasi-experiment lasting one semester in SWJTU coupled with questionnaire before and after the experiment. The subjects are the non-English major students from two natural classes taught by the researcher herself. One class, as an experimental class (EC), receives LCTA; the other is a control class (CC), in which new words learning is handled in the traditional way, that is IWL. The data collected is analyzed by SPSS (16.0) to testify the hypothesis.
Based on the statistic data analysis, the two classes have no significant difference in Word Associates Test (WAT) and guided writing before the experiment; while after the experiment the students in EC score higher both in WAT and guided writing. So the conclusion can be drawn that LCTA is an effective way of learning vocabulary. Moreover, data of the questionnaire on the vocabulary strategies shows that after the experiment the students in EC use quite different strategies from the ones used by the students in CC. Comparing with the strategies they use before the experiment, the students in EC have changed a lot in their strategy uses after the experiment. Thus the conclusion can be drawn that LCTA has a positive influence on the form of good vocabulary learning strategies.
引文
Ahmed, M. O. (1989). Vocabulary Learning Strategies. in P. Meara (ed.), Beyond Words. London:BAAL/DILT,3-14
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York, NY:Freeman.
Biber. D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:Pearson Education Limited.
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? Formulaic speech in adult learners'L2 Swedish. in K. Hyltenstam & L.K.Obler(eds.) Bilingualism across the lifespan. Cambridge University Press,73-86
Cobb, T. (2002). Review of Alison Wray (2002), Formulaic language and the lexicon. For Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Cowie, A. P. (ed.). (1998). Phraseology:Theory, Analysis, and Application. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cruttende, A. (1981). Item-learning and System-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.10 (1),79-88
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, Chunking and Connectionism. in Doughty, C& Long M. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gu, Y., & Johnson.,R.K. (1996). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language Learning Outcomes. Language Learning.46 (4),643-769.
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated Patterns and the Emergence of Structure in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning,24 (2),287-297
Henriksen, Brigit. (1999). Three Dimensions of Vocabulary Development. SSLA 21,303-317
Henry, A. (1996). Natural Chunks of Language:Teaching Speech Through Speech. English for Specific Purposes.
Herbert, W. S. & E. Shohamy. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency. Applied Linguistics.19 (1),24-44
Krashen, S & Scarcella, R. (1978). On Routines and Patterns in Language Acquisition and Performance. Language Learning.28 (2),283-300
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach:The State of ELT and the Way Forward. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach:Putting Theory into Practice. England:Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Pedagogical Implications of the Lexical approach. In Coady, J. & T. Huckin (Eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition:A rationale for pedagogy (pp.255-270). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second Language Acquisition and the Competition Model. In A. M.B. DeGoot, A. M. B. and J. F. Kroll, (Eds.) Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycho linguistic Perspectives. Hillsdale. N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meara, Paul (1996). The Dimensions of Lexical Competence. In Gillian Brown, Kirsten Malmkjaer, John Williams, (Eds.) Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisiton (pp.35-53). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. R. & J. S. DeCarrico. (2000). Lexical Phrases and Language Learning.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
Nesselhaluf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics.24 (2),223-242
O'Malley, J & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Pawley. A., & Syder. F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory:native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Richards, J. & R. Schmidt, (Eds.). Language and communication (PP.191-226). London:Longman.
Peters, A. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Prodromou, L. (2003). Idiomaticity and the Non-native Speaker. English Today.19 (2), 42-48.
Richares, J. C. (1976). The Role of Vocabulary Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 10 (1),77-89.
Schmitt, N. & M. McMarthy, (1997). Vocabulary:Description, Acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schimitt, N. (ed.) (2004). Formulaic Sequences:Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N. & K. Conklin, (2008). Formulaic Sequence:Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? Applied Linguistics. 29 (1),72-89
Sclinger, L. (1978). Implications of A Multiple Critical Periods Hypothesis for Second Language Learning in Ritchie (eds.) New York:Academic Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. London:Oxford University Press.
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. & G. Rallon, (2004). Tracking the Incidence of Formulaic Expressions in Everyday Speech:Methods for Classification and Verification. Language and Communication.
Weinert, R. (1995). The Role of Formulaic Language in Second Language Acquisition:A Review. Applied Linguistics 16(2),180-205
Wiktorsson, M. (2003). Learning Idiomaticity:A Corpus-Based Study of Idiomatic Expressions in Learners'Written Production. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, Lunds University, Sweden.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. London:Edward Arnold.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The Second Time Around:Cognitive and Social Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Standford University.
Wray, A. (1992). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wray, A., & R. M. Perkins, (2000). The Functions of Formulaic Language:An Integrated Model. Language and Communication.
丁言仁,戚焱,(2005),词块运用与英语口语和写作水平的相关性研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3)：49-53。
丁言仁,(2004)《背诵英语课文—现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法》,陕西师范大学出版社。
段士平,(2007),从词块能力看词汇深度习得中的“高原现象”, 《国外外语教学》,(4)：27-32。
段士平,(2008),国内二语语块教学研究述评, 《中国外语》,(7)：63-74。
丰玉芳,(2003),英语专业高低年级学生词汇学习策略比较研究,《外语界》,(2)：66-72。
蒋宇红,(2007),词块学习与英语口语交际,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,(4)：84-89。
李晓,(2007),词汇量,词汇深度知识与语言综合能力关系研究,《外语教学与研究》,(9)：352-359。
李太志,(2006),词块在外贸英语写作教学中的优势及产出性训练法,《外语界》,(1)：34-39。
马广惠,(2009),英语专业学生二语限时写作中的词块研究,《外语教学与研究》,(1)：54-60。
濮建忠,(2003a),英语词汇教学中的类连接、搭配及词块.《外语教学与研究》,(6)：438-445。
濮建忠,(2003b),《学习者动词行为：类联接、搭配及词块》,河南大学出版社。
宋德生,(2002),组块效应及其对外语教学的启示,《外语与外语教学》,(9)：23-25。
王立非、张大风,(2006),国外二语预制语块习得研究的方法进展与启示,《外语与外语教学》,(5)：17-21。
王文宇,(1998),观念、策略与英语词汇记忆,《外语教学与研究》,(1)。
卫乃兴,(2007),中国学生英语口语的短语学特征研究—COLSEC语料库的词块证据分析,《现代外语》,(3)：280-291。
文秋芳,(1996),《英语学习策略》,上海外语教育出版社。
文秋芳,(2004),《应用语言学-研究方法与论文写作》,外语教学与研究出版社。
文秋芳,(2004),《英语学习策略理论研究》,陕西师范大学出版社。
吴霞、王蔷,(1998),非英语专业本科生学生词汇学习策略,《外语教学与研究》,(2)。
严维华,(2003),语块对基本词汇习得的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》,(6)。
余绮川,(2008),认知框架下的语块研究,.《重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版)》,(7)：194-195.
蒋俊梅,(2009),词块教学法在大学英语词汇教学中的可行性分析,《中州大学学报》,(3)：76-78。
谢咏梅,(2008),词块与词块教学,《西安邮电学院学报》,(3)：158-161。
赵丹、范佳程,(2009),词块教学在大学英语教学中的一项实证研究,《重庆工学院学报(社会科学版)》,(4)：159-161。
郑友奇、许先文,(2007),语言研究普遍性向领域特殊性的过渡---语块的认知科学理论及模式探析,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,(2)：33-38。
周卫京,(2007),《基于学习任务的二语词汇习得实证研究》,对外经济贸易大学出版社。
Anderson, J. R. (1985). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implications. New York, NY:Freeman.
Biber. D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad & E. Finegan.1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:Pearson Education Limited.
Bolander, M. (1989). Prefabs, patterns and rules in interaction? Formulaic speech in adult learners'L2 Swedish. in K. Hyltenstam & L.K.Obler(eds.) Bilingualism across the lifespan. Cambridge University Press,73-86
Cobb, T. (2002). Review of Alison Wray (2002), Formulaic language and the lexicon. For Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics.
Cowie, A. P. (ed.). (1998). Phraseology:Theory, Analysis, and Application. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Cruttende, A. (1981). Item-learning and System-learning. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research.10 (1),79-88
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Ellis, N. (2003). Constructions, Chunking and Connectionism. in Doughty, C& Long M. The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Gu, Y., & Johnson.,R.K. (1996). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Language Learning Outcomes. Language Learning.46 (4),643-769.
Hakuta, K. (1974). Prefabricated Patterns and the Emergence of Structure in Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning,24 (2),287-297
Henriksen, Brigit. (1999). Three Dimensions of Vocabulary Development. SSLA 21,303-317
Henry, A. (1996). Natural Chunks of Language:Teaching Speech Through Speech. English for Specific Purposes.
Herbert, W. S. & E. Shohamy. (1989). Second Language Research Methods. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and Second Language Proficiency. Applied Linguistics.19 (1),24-44
Krashen, S & Scarcella, R. (1978). On Routines and Patterns in Language Acquisition and Performance. Language Learning.28 (2),283-300
Lewis, M. (1993). The Lexical Approach:The State of ELT and the Way Forward. London: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach:Putting Theory into Practice. England:Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Pedagogical Implications of the Lexical approach. In Coady, J. & T. Huckin (Eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition:A rationale for pedagogy (pp.255-270). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
MacWhinney, B. (1997). Second Language Acquisition and the Competition Model. In A. M.B. DeGoot, A. M. B. and J. F. Kroll, (Eds.) Tutorials in Bilingualism: Psycho linguistic Perspectives. Hillsdale. N. J.:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Meara, Paul (1996). The Dimensions of Lexical Competence. In Gillian Brown, Kirsten Malmkjaer, John Williams, (Eds.) Performance and Competence in Second Language Acquisiton (pp.35-53). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Nattinger, J. R. & J. S. DeCarrico. (2000). Lexical Phrases and Language Learning.上海：上海外语教育出版社.
Nesselhaluf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics.24 (2),223-242
O'Malley, J & Chamot, A. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language Learning Strategies:What Every Teacher Should Know Heinle & Heinle Publishers
Pawley. A., & Syder. F. (1983). Two puzzles for linguistic theory:native-like selection and native-like fluency. In Richards, J. & R. Schmidt, (Eds.). Language and communication (PP.191-226). London:Longman.
Peters, A. (1983). The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Prodromou, L. (2003). Idiomaticity and the Non-native Speaker. English Today.19 (2), 42-48.
Richares, J. C. (1976). The Role of Vocabulary Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 10 (1),77-89.
Schmitt, N. & M. McMarthy, (1997). Vocabulary:Description, Acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Schimitt, N. (ed.) (2004). Formulaic Sequences:Acquisition, Processing and Use. Amsterdam:John Benjamins.
Schmitt, N. & K. Conklin, (2008). Formulaic Sequence:Are They Processed More Quickly than Nonformulaic Language by Native and Nonnative Speakers? Applied Linguistics. 29 (1),72-89
Sclinger, L. (1978). Implications of A Multiple Critical Periods Hypothesis for Second Language Learning in Ritchie (eds.) New York:Academic Press.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, Concordance and Collocation. Shanghai:Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. London:Oxford University Press.
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D. & G. Rallon, (2004). Tracking the Incidence of Formulaic Expressions in Everyday Speech:Methods for Classification and Verification. Language and Communication.
Weinert, R. (1995). The Role of Formulaic Language in Second Language Acquisition:A Review. Applied Linguistics 16(2),180-205
Wiktorsson, M. (2003). Learning Idiomaticity:A Corpus-Based Study of Idiomatic Expressions in Learners'Written Production. Unpublished Ph.D.Dissertation, Lunds University, Sweden.
Wilkins, D. (1972). Linguistics in Language Teaching. London:Edward Arnold.
Wong-Fillmore, L. (1976). The Second Time Around:Cognitive and Social Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. Standford University.
Wray, A. (1992). Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Wray, A., & R. M. Perkins, (2000). The Functions of Formulaic Language:An Integrated Model. Language and Communication.
丁言仁,戚焱,(2005),词块运用与英语口语和写作水平的相关性研究.《解放军外国语学院学报》,(3)：49-53。
丁言仁,(2004)《背诵英语课文—现代中国高等院校中传统的语文学习方法》,陕西师范大学出版社。
段士平,(2007),从词块能力看词汇深度习得中的“高原现象”, 《国外外语教学》,(4)：27-32。
段士平,(2008),国内二语语块教学研究述评, 《中国外语》,(7)：63-74。
丰玉芳,(2003),英语专业高低年级学生词汇学习策略比较研究,《外语界》,(2)：66-72。
蒋宇红,(2007),词块学习与英语口语交际,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,(4)：84-89。
李晓,(2007),词汇量,词汇深度知识与语言综合能力关系研究,《外语教学与研究》,(9)：352-359。
李太志,(2006),词块在外贸英语写作教学中的优势及产出性训练法,《外语界》,(1)：34-39。
马广惠,(2009),英语专业学生二语限时写作中的词块研究,《外语教学与研究》,(1)：54-60。
濮建忠,(2003a),英语词汇教学中的类连接、搭配及词块.《外语教学与研究》,(6)：438-445。
濮建忠,(2003b),《学习者动词行为：类联接、搭配及词块》,河南大学出版社。
宋德生,(2002),组块效应及其对外语教学的启示,《外语与外语教学》,(9)：23-25。
王立非、张大风,(2006),国外二语预制语块习得研究的方法进展与启示,《外语与外语教学》,(5)：17-21。
王文宇,(1998),观念、策略与英语词汇记忆,《外语教学与研究》,(1)。
卫乃兴,(2007),中国学生英语口语的短语学特征研究—COLSEC语料库的词块证据分析,《现代外语》,(3)：280-291。
文秋芳,(1996),《英语学习策略》,上海外语教育出版社。
文秋芳,(2004),《应用语言学-研究方法与论文写作》,外语教学与研究出版社。
文秋芳,(2004),《英语学习策略理论研究》,陕西师范大学出版社。
吴霞、王蔷,(1998),非英语专业本科生学生词汇学习策略,《外语教学与研究》,(2)。
严维华,(2003),语块对基本词汇习得的作用,《解放军外国语学院学报》,(6)。
余绮川,(2008),认知框架下的语块研究,.《重庆科技学院学报(社会科学版)》,(7)：194-195.
蒋俊梅,(2009),词块教学法在大学英语词汇教学中的可行性分析,《中州大学学报》,(3)：76-78。
谢咏梅,(2008),词块与词块教学,《西安邮电学院学报》,(3)：158-161。
赵丹、范佳程,(2009),词块教学在大学英语教学中的一项实证研究,《重庆工学院学报(社会科学版)》,(4)：159-161。
郑友奇、许先文,(2007),语言研究普遍性向领域特殊性的过渡---语块的认知科学理论及模式探析,《北京第二外国语学院学报》,(2)：33-38。
周卫京,(2007),《基于学习任务的二语词汇习得实证研究》,对外经济贸易大学出版社。