消极积极词汇的心理组织与表征
摘要
随着近些年来认知语言学和心理语言学等学科的发展,心理词汇研究已逐渐成为一个备受关注的课题。在母语心理词汇研究已经取得显著成果的同时,许多研究者也承认,这些研究成果并不能完全适用于二语心理词汇研究。鉴于二语习得的复杂性和特殊性,二语心理词汇尤其是中国英语学习者心理词汇,需要更多的独立研究和探讨。早有许多语言学家对消极词汇和积极词汇做过细致的研究。不足的是,极少有人从心理词汇的角度专门探讨消极词汇和积极词汇的性质特征。本文在实证研究的基础上,探讨和论证了中国英语学习者心理词汇中消极积极词汇的组织和表征性质,旨在这一领域能够有所贡献,从而为词汇的教与学提供了一些建议和启示。
首先,本文综述了二语心理词汇研究和消极词汇与积极词汇研究两方面的相关文献和成果。二语心理词汇研究主要包括词汇知识,组织和表征等方面。回顾这些方面的成果为消极积极词汇的进一步研究奠定了基础。消极词汇与积极词汇研究主要包括:消极积极词汇的区别,消极积极词汇知识的连续性,等级性,消极表征和积极表征等方面。基于对前人研究的回顾,本文提出了研究假设:在中国英语学习者心理词汇中,消极词汇主要是形式上的联系,而积极词汇则是语义上的联系。在以往实验方法的基础上,本文根据自身的研究目的设计了新的实证研究来检验这一假设。
实验由词汇知识深度测试和词汇联想测试组成。受试者为西南政法大学(非英语专业)本科三年级学生,他们同时也是四川外语学院英语语言文化系(英语专业)双学位二年级学生。在词汇知识深度测试中,受试者对48个刺激词进行了五个等级的划分,目的主要是把它们分成消极词汇和积极词汇两大类。一周以后,受试者进行了词汇联想测试,目的是为了调查受试者对消极词汇和积极词汇的反应类型的不同。刺激词不变,但顺序不同。所有的这些词汇等级和反应类型都按相应的评分标准被赋予了不同的分值,以方便下一步的资料收集和分析。
收集后的实验数据通过SPSS统计软件进行了细致的分析。通过对结果的讨论和理解,本研究得出以下结论:(1)在每个词汇等级中的反应中,语音型反应比例都占绝对优势。(2)在消极词汇中,形式反应(语音型反应等)比例比语义反应(组合型反应和聚合型反应)比例高。(3)在积极词汇的反应中,语义反应比形式反应比例高。研究假设得到了证实。实验结果表明,在中国学习者心理词汇中,消极词汇与积极词汇的词汇组织截然不同,前者以形式联系为主,后者以语义联系为主。相对应地,消极词汇和积极词汇在中国学习者心理词汇中的表征也会存在明显的不同。而且,实验结果也说明中国学习者在词汇习得过程中存在着一些问题。
最后,本文讨论了本研究的启示,对中国学习者的词汇的教与学提出了一些建议,同时也指出了本研究的局限性以及对将来研究的展望。
Mental lexicon research has been a popular and independent subject as the development of cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics in recent years. Remarkable achievements on the L1 mental lexicon research have been gained, but these are not completely applicable to the L2 mental lexicon, as many researchers acknowledge. For complexity and particularity of second language acquisition (SLA), more separate studies and discussions are still needed for the L2 mental lexicon, especially the Chinese learners of English (henceforward CLE for short) mental lexicon. Many linguists and experts have explored receptive vocabulary (henceforward RV for short) and productive vocabulary (henceforward PV for short) thoroughly. However, only a few of them study the nature and characteristics of these two categories of vocabulary from the perspective of the mental lexicon. Aiming to contribute a little to the study in this field, this thesis tries to discuss and explore lexical organization and representation of RV and PV in the CLE mental lexicon (i.e., mental organization and representation) through empirical research, and then provides some tentative implications for vocabulary learning and teaching.
The thesis first reviews the literature on the L2 mental lexicon research and the RV and PV aspect of it. The L2 mental lexicon research mainly includes lexical knowledge, organization and representation. Review of these aspects will pave the way for further discussions of RV and PV, which includes the distinction between RV and PV, the continuum of RV and PV knowledge, scales of RV and PV knowledge, and C-representation and P-representation. After this careful review of previous studies, a hypothesis is proposed that RV is formally (phonologically, orthographically and morphologically) related while PV semantically (syntagmatically and paradigmatically) related in the CLE (L2) mental lexicon. Based on the previous methods, the thesis designs new empirical research to testify this hypothesis.
The experiment is composed of the vocabulary knowledge scale (henceforward VKS for short) and the word association test (henceforward WAT for short). The subjects are the undergraduates in Grade 3 in Southwest University of Political Science and Law, who are also pursuing the second Bachelor’s degree of English in Sichuan International Studies University (SISU). In the VKS, the subjects are instructed to scale the prompt words into five levels, in order to classify them into RV and PV separately. A week later, the WAT is conducted, with the same list of prompt words but in different order, for the purpose to investigate the word relation in RV and PV. All the levels and response patterns in the study are given scores according to the corresponding scoring standards for convenience of further data collection and analysis.
The collected experiment data are analyzed carefully and accurately with the help of the professional statistical software SPSS. Based on the research results, the thesis comes to these findings: (1) the proportion of clang-other responses is dominant in all the five VKS score levels; (2) in RV, the proportion of formal (clang-other) responses is higher than that of semantic (syntagmatic and paradigmatic) responses; (3) in PV, the proportion of semantic (syntagmatic and paradigmatic) responses is higher than that of formal (clang-other) responses. So the hypothesis is verified. That is to say, lexical organization of RV is markedly different from that of PV in the CLE mental lexicon. The former is formally related while the latter semantically related. Correspondingly, the representation of RV and PV is different, too. Furthermore, the results indicate some problems in the CLE vocabulary acquisition.
At last the thesis discusses implications of the study for the CLE vocabulary acquisition, limitations of the present study, and expectation of further researches.
首先,本文综述了二语心理词汇研究和消极词汇与积极词汇研究两方面的相关文献和成果。二语心理词汇研究主要包括词汇知识,组织和表征等方面。回顾这些方面的成果为消极积极词汇的进一步研究奠定了基础。消极词汇与积极词汇研究主要包括:消极积极词汇的区别,消极积极词汇知识的连续性,等级性,消极表征和积极表征等方面。基于对前人研究的回顾,本文提出了研究假设:在中国英语学习者心理词汇中,消极词汇主要是形式上的联系,而积极词汇则是语义上的联系。在以往实验方法的基础上,本文根据自身的研究目的设计了新的实证研究来检验这一假设。
实验由词汇知识深度测试和词汇联想测试组成。受试者为西南政法大学(非英语专业)本科三年级学生,他们同时也是四川外语学院英语语言文化系(英语专业)双学位二年级学生。在词汇知识深度测试中,受试者对48个刺激词进行了五个等级的划分,目的主要是把它们分成消极词汇和积极词汇两大类。一周以后,受试者进行了词汇联想测试,目的是为了调查受试者对消极词汇和积极词汇的反应类型的不同。刺激词不变,但顺序不同。所有的这些词汇等级和反应类型都按相应的评分标准被赋予了不同的分值,以方便下一步的资料收集和分析。
收集后的实验数据通过SPSS统计软件进行了细致的分析。通过对结果的讨论和理解,本研究得出以下结论:(1)在每个词汇等级中的反应中,语音型反应比例都占绝对优势。(2)在消极词汇中,形式反应(语音型反应等)比例比语义反应(组合型反应和聚合型反应)比例高。(3)在积极词汇的反应中,语义反应比形式反应比例高。研究假设得到了证实。实验结果表明,在中国学习者心理词汇中,消极词汇与积极词汇的词汇组织截然不同,前者以形式联系为主,后者以语义联系为主。相对应地,消极词汇和积极词汇在中国学习者心理词汇中的表征也会存在明显的不同。而且,实验结果也说明中国学习者在词汇习得过程中存在着一些问题。
最后,本文讨论了本研究的启示,对中国学习者的词汇的教与学提出了一些建议,同时也指出了本研究的局限性以及对将来研究的展望。
Mental lexicon research has been a popular and independent subject as the development of cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics in recent years. Remarkable achievements on the L1 mental lexicon research have been gained, but these are not completely applicable to the L2 mental lexicon, as many researchers acknowledge. For complexity and particularity of second language acquisition (SLA), more separate studies and discussions are still needed for the L2 mental lexicon, especially the Chinese learners of English (henceforward CLE for short) mental lexicon. Many linguists and experts have explored receptive vocabulary (henceforward RV for short) and productive vocabulary (henceforward PV for short) thoroughly. However, only a few of them study the nature and characteristics of these two categories of vocabulary from the perspective of the mental lexicon. Aiming to contribute a little to the study in this field, this thesis tries to discuss and explore lexical organization and representation of RV and PV in the CLE mental lexicon (i.e., mental organization and representation) through empirical research, and then provides some tentative implications for vocabulary learning and teaching.
The thesis first reviews the literature on the L2 mental lexicon research and the RV and PV aspect of it. The L2 mental lexicon research mainly includes lexical knowledge, organization and representation. Review of these aspects will pave the way for further discussions of RV and PV, which includes the distinction between RV and PV, the continuum of RV and PV knowledge, scales of RV and PV knowledge, and C-representation and P-representation. After this careful review of previous studies, a hypothesis is proposed that RV is formally (phonologically, orthographically and morphologically) related while PV semantically (syntagmatically and paradigmatically) related in the CLE (L2) mental lexicon. Based on the previous methods, the thesis designs new empirical research to testify this hypothesis.
The experiment is composed of the vocabulary knowledge scale (henceforward VKS for short) and the word association test (henceforward WAT for short). The subjects are the undergraduates in Grade 3 in Southwest University of Political Science and Law, who are also pursuing the second Bachelor’s degree of English in Sichuan International Studies University (SISU). In the VKS, the subjects are instructed to scale the prompt words into five levels, in order to classify them into RV and PV separately. A week later, the WAT is conducted, with the same list of prompt words but in different order, for the purpose to investigate the word relation in RV and PV. All the levels and response patterns in the study are given scores according to the corresponding scoring standards for convenience of further data collection and analysis.
The collected experiment data are analyzed carefully and accurately with the help of the professional statistical software SPSS. Based on the research results, the thesis comes to these findings: (1) the proportion of clang-other responses is dominant in all the five VKS score levels; (2) in RV, the proportion of formal (clang-other) responses is higher than that of semantic (syntagmatic and paradigmatic) responses; (3) in PV, the proportion of semantic (syntagmatic and paradigmatic) responses is higher than that of formal (clang-other) responses. So the hypothesis is verified. That is to say, lexical organization of RV is markedly different from that of PV in the CLE mental lexicon. The former is formally related while the latter semantically related. Correspondingly, the representation of RV and PV is different, too. Furthermore, the results indicate some problems in the CLE vocabulary acquisition.
At last the thesis discusses implications of the study for the CLE vocabulary acquisition, limitations of the present study, and expectation of further researches.
引文
[1] Aitchison, J. Words in the Mind: an Introduction to the Mental Lexicon[M]. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1987.
[2] Allen, F. Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[3] Arnaud, P. and H. Bejoint (eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics[C]. London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd., 1992.
[4] Bonin, P. (ed.). Mental Lexicon: Some Words to Talk About Words[C]. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2004.
[5] Brown, G. et al. (eds.). Language and Understanding[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[6] Carroll, W. Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[7] Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. New York: Longman Inc., 1988.
[8] Channell, J. Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition[A]. In Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. New York: Longman Inc., 1988, 83-76.
[9] Clark, V. The Lexicon in Acquisition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[10] Claudia, O. et al. Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: which vocabulary skills transfer [J]? Journal of Educational Psychology, 2002, 94/4: 719-728.
[11] Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[12] Doughty, J. and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C]. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003.
[13] Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[14] Garman, M. Psycholinguistics[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2002.
[15] Goulden, R. et al. How large can a receptive vocabulary be [J]? Applied Linguistics, 1990, 11/4: 341-363.
[16] Hatch, E. and C. Brown (eds.). Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education[C]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[17] Hazenberg, S. and J. Hulstijn. Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary from non-native university students[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1996, 17/2: 145-163.
[18] Howatt, A. A History of English Language Teaching[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[19] Jiang, N. Lexical representation and development in a second language[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2000, 21/1: 47-77.
[20] Jullian, P. Creating Word-meaning Awareness[J]. ELT journal, 2000, 54/1: 37-46.
[21] Kroll, F. and G. Sunderman. Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilinguals: the development of lexical and conceptual representations[A]. In Doughty, J. and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C]. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003, 104-129.
[22] Laufer, B. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19/2: 255-271.
[23] Laufer, B. and P. Nation. Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1995, 16/3: 307-322.
[24] Laufer, B. and T. Paribakht. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: effects of language learning context[J]. Language Learning, 1998, 48/3: 365-391.
[25] Levelt, W. Speaking From Intention to Articulation[M]. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
[26] Lewis, M. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach[A]. In Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001, 255-270.
[27] Melka, F. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary[A]. In Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002, 84-102.
[28] Nation, P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary[M]. New York: Newbury House Publishers, 1990.
[29] Nation, P. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[30] Nation, P. and J. Newton. Teaching vocabulary[A]. In Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001, 238-254.
[31] Poulisse, N. and T. Bongaerts. First language use in second language production[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1994, 15/1: 36-57.
[32] Read, J. Vocabulary and testing[A]. In Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002, 303-320.
[33] Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[34] Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[35] Singleton, D. Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[36] Singleton, D. Language and the Lexicon: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[37] Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[38] Verhallen, M. and R. Schoonen. Lexical knowledge in L1 and L2 of the third and fifth graders[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19/4: 452-470.
[39] Wallace, M. Teaching Vocabulary[M]. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1982.
[40] Waring, R. A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards[J/OL]. Studies in Foreign Language and Literature [Jan. 1997a]. 8 Nov. 2005..
[41] Waring, R. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners[Z]. Occasional paper of Notre Dame Seishin University, Kiyo, [1997b]. 8 Nov. 2005..
[42] Waring, R. The‘state rating task’—an alternative method of assessing receptive and productive vocabulary[J/OL]. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature [Jan. 2000]. 8 Nov. 2005..
[43] Waring, R. Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment[Z]. Occasional paper of Notre Dame Seishin University, Kiyo, [2002]. 6 Oct. 2005..
[44] Webb, S. Receptive and productive vocabulary learning[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 33-52, 2005.
[45] Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus[M/CD]. Collis ELT. [1990]. 17 Mar. 2006. < http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/LexSyllabus/lexsch1.pdf>.
[46] Willis, J. and D. Willis. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[47] Wolter, B. Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: A depth of individual word knowledge model[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2001, 23: 41-69.
[48]戴曼纯,论第二语言词汇习得研究[J].外语教学与研究, 2000, (2): 138-144.
[49]董燕萍,桂诗春.关于双语心理词库的表征结构[J].外国语, 2002, (4): 23-29.
[50]桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
[51]桂诗春,杨惠中.中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
[52]韩宝成.外语教学科研中的统计方法[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
[53]李弘,王寅.英语词汇认知分析与学习[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社, 2005.
[54]刘毅.英文字根字典[M].北京:外文出版社, 1999.
[55]马秉义.英语词汇系统简论[M].北京:气象出版社, 2004.
[56]束定芳.外语教学改革:问题与对策[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
[57]孙蓝.从认知制约看心理词汇[J].外语教学, 2001, (4): 24-26.
[58]肖旭月.英汉语视觉词汇提取中的语音效应[J].外语教学与研究, 2003, (2):120-125.
[59]杨端和.语言研究应用SPSS软件实例大全[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
[60]杨惠中等.基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
[61]张淑静. The CLE Mental Lexicon: Nature and Developmental Pattern[M].河南:河南大学出版社, 2004.
[62]赵彦春.认知词典学探索[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
[2] Allen, F. Techniques in Teaching Vocabulary[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[3] Arnaud, P. and H. Bejoint (eds.). Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics[C]. London: Macmillan Academic and Professional Ltd., 1992.
[4] Bonin, P. (ed.). Mental Lexicon: Some Words to Talk About Words[C]. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2004.
[5] Brown, G. et al. (eds.). Language and Understanding[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[6] Carroll, W. Psychology of Language[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[7] Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. New York: Longman Inc., 1988.
[8] Channell, J. Psycholinguistic considerations in the study of L2 vocabulary acquisition[A]. In Carter, R. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary and Language Teaching[C]. New York: Longman Inc., 1988, 83-76.
[9] Clark, V. The Lexicon in Acquisition[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[10] Claudia, O. et al. Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages: which vocabulary skills transfer [J]? Journal of Educational Psychology, 2002, 94/4: 719-728.
[11] Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001.
[12] Doughty, J. and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C]. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003.
[13] Ellis, R. The Study of Second Language Acquisition[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[14] Garman, M. Psycholinguistics[M]. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2002.
[15] Goulden, R. et al. How large can a receptive vocabulary be [J]? Applied Linguistics, 1990, 11/4: 341-363.
[16] Hatch, E. and C. Brown (eds.). Vocabulary, Semantics and Language Education[C]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2001.
[17] Hazenberg, S. and J. Hulstijn. Defining a minimal receptive second-language vocabulary from non-native university students[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1996, 17/2: 145-163.
[18] Howatt, A. A History of English Language Teaching[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[19] Jiang, N. Lexical representation and development in a second language[J]. Applied Linguistics, 2000, 21/1: 47-77.
[20] Jullian, P. Creating Word-meaning Awareness[J]. ELT journal, 2000, 54/1: 37-46.
[21] Kroll, F. and G. Sunderman. Cognitive processes in second language learners and bilinguals: the development of lexical and conceptual representations[A]. In Doughty, J. and M. Long (eds.). The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition[C]. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003, 104-129.
[22] Laufer, B. The development of passive and active vocabulary in a second language: same or different?[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19/2: 255-271.
[23] Laufer, B. and P. Nation. Vocabulary size and use: lexical richness in L2 written production[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1995, 16/3: 307-322.
[24] Laufer, B. and T. Paribakht. The relationship between passive and active vocabularies: effects of language learning context[J]. Language Learning, 1998, 48/3: 365-391.
[25] Levelt, W. Speaking From Intention to Articulation[M]. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1989.
[26] Lewis, M. Pedagogical implications of the lexical approach[A]. In Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001, 255-270.
[27] Melka, F. Receptive vs. productive aspects of vocabulary[A]. In Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002, 84-102.
[28] Nation, P. Teaching and Learning Vocabulary[M]. New York: Newbury House Publishers, 1990.
[29] Nation, P. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
[30] Nation, P. and J. Newton. Teaching vocabulary[A]. In Coady, J. and T. Huckin (eds.). Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2001, 238-254.
[31] Poulisse, N. and T. Bongaerts. First language use in second language production[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1994, 15/1: 36-57.
[32] Read, J. Vocabulary and testing[A]. In Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002, 303-320.
[33] Richards, J. and T. Rodgers. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
[34] Schmitt, N. and M. McCarthy (eds.). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy[C]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[35] Singleton, D. Exploring the Second Language Mental Lexicon[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
[36] Singleton, D. Language and the Lexicon: An Introduction[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
[37] Skehan, P. A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 1999.
[38] Verhallen, M. and R. Schoonen. Lexical knowledge in L1 and L2 of the third and fifth graders[J]. Applied Linguistics, 1998, 19/4: 452-470.
[39] Wallace, M. Teaching Vocabulary[M]. London: Heinemann Educational Books, 1982.
[40] Waring, R. A study of receptive and productive learning from word cards[J/OL]. Studies in Foreign Language and Literature [Jan. 1997a]. 8 Nov. 2005.
[41] Waring, R. A comparison of the receptive and productive vocabulary sizes of some second language learners[Z]. Occasional paper of Notre Dame Seishin University, Kiyo, [1997b]. 8 Nov. 2005.
[42] Waring, R. The‘state rating task’—an alternative method of assessing receptive and productive vocabulary[J/OL]. Studies in Foreign Languages and Literature [Jan. 2000]. 8 Nov. 2005.
[43] Waring, R. Scales of vocabulary knowledge in second language vocabulary assessment[Z]. Occasional paper of Notre Dame Seishin University, Kiyo, [2002]. 6 Oct. 2005.
[44] Webb, S. Receptive and productive vocabulary learning[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27: 33-52, 2005.
[45] Willis, D. The Lexical Syllabus[M/CD]. Collis ELT. [1990]. 17 Mar. 2006. < http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/LexSyllabus/lexsch1.pdf>.
[46] Willis, J. and D. Willis. Challenge and Change in Language Teaching[M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2002.
[47] Wolter, B. Comparing the L1 and L2 mental lexicon: A depth of individual word knowledge model[J]. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 2001, 23: 41-69.
[48]戴曼纯,论第二语言词汇习得研究[J].外语教学与研究, 2000, (2): 138-144.
[49]董燕萍,桂诗春.关于双语心理词库的表征结构[J].外国语, 2002, (4): 23-29.
[50]桂诗春.新编心理语言学[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2000.
[51]桂诗春,杨惠中.中国学习者英语语料库[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.
[52]韩宝成.外语教学科研中的统计方法[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社, 2000.
[53]李弘,王寅.英语词汇认知分析与学习[M].北京:中国科学技术出版社, 2005.
[54]刘毅.英文字根字典[M].北京:外文出版社, 1999.
[55]马秉义.英语词汇系统简论[M].北京:气象出版社, 2004.
[56]束定芳.外语教学改革:问题与对策[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2004.
[57]孙蓝.从认知制约看心理词汇[J].外语教学, 2001, (4): 24-26.
[58]肖旭月.英汉语视觉词汇提取中的语音效应[J].外语教学与研究, 2003, (2):120-125.
[59]杨端和.语言研究应用SPSS软件实例大全[M].北京:中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
[60]杨惠中等.基于CLEC语料库的中国学习者英语分析[C].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2005.
[61]张淑静. The CLE Mental Lexicon: Nature and Developmental Pattern[M].河南:河南大学出版社, 2004.
[62]赵彦春.认知词典学探索[M].上海:上海外语教育出版社, 2003.