英语专业学生词汇学习策略与词汇知识深度一项基于苏州大学英语专业大三学生的研究毕业论文.docx

英语专业学生词汇学习策略与词汇知识深度一项基于苏州大学英语专业大三学生的研究毕业论文.docx

《英语专业学生词汇学习策略与词汇知识深度一项基于苏州大学英语专业大三学生的研究毕业论文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语专业学生词汇学习策略与词汇知识深度一项基于苏州大学英语专业大三学生的研究毕业论文.docx（24页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

英语专业学生词汇学习策略与词汇知识深度一项基于苏州大学英语专业大三学生的研究毕业论文

---文档均为word文档，下载后可直接编辑使用亦可打印---

摘要

在语言习得中，词汇学习占有十分重要的地位且是提高语言能力的最有效途径之一。

对于英语专业学生来说，他们不仅要通过有效的学习策略来拥有充分的词汇广度,即了解一个词最常用的含义，也应该掌握一定的词汇深度知识，即能在一定语境条件下正确选用适当的词并且恰当用法的能力。

目前已经有许多研究调查学习策略对于二语学习者词汇量的影响，但很少有研究检验学习策略与词汇深度知识之间的关系，而词汇深度很大程度决定了一个语言学习者的词汇能力。

在这样的背景下，为了探究英语专业学生的词汇学习策略的运用情况，词汇深度知识的掌握程度，和这两者之间是否存在以及存在怎样的关联，该论文以中国东部一所综合性大学的98名英语专业大三学生为样本进行了实证研究。

该论文使用了根据顾永琦和Johnson（1996）的问卷改编的词汇学习策略问卷和基于Read（1998）的词汇联想测试改编的词汇深度测试卷。

通过SPSS软件对收集的调查数据分析后，结果如下：

首先，英语专业学生的词汇知识深度水平总体令人满意，平均分达到了75%，但仍有一些学生没能通过测试，说明学生之间词汇知识深度的水平之间存在一定差距。

其次，词汇策略调查问卷的结果显示，学生们在学习词汇时倾向于综合运用包括元认知，认知和社交/情感等多样的词汇学习策略。

最常用的策略包括词义猜测，自我管理，上下文策略和构词策略。

最后，经过分析词汇深度和词汇学习策略之间的关联，三类词汇学习策略和词汇深度知识皆呈显著相关性，其中自主学习和词义猜测策略关系最为紧密，而重复策略和社交策略的关联较弱。

基于这些发现，本文就如何通过高效的词汇学习策略来提高词汇深度知识提出了一些建议，希望能为今后的研究提供一定的帮助。

关键词：

词汇学习策略、词汇深度知识、英语专业

ListofTables

Table1TheVocabularyKnowledgeFrameworkbyNation（2001）

Table2VLSsandcorrespondinglearningbehaviors

Table3DescriptiveStatisticsonVLSs

Table4DescriptiveStatisticsonWAT

Table5DistributionoftheParticipants'ScoresonWAT

Table6CorrelationsbetweenReportedVLSsandDVK

Chapter1Introduction

Thischapterprovidesabriefintroductionaboutthebackgroundandtheresearchgap.Also,thepurposeandthesignificanceofthepresentstudyarecoveredinthischapter.

1.1.BackgroundoftheStudy

Withtheglobalizationandtheincreasingcommunicationbetweencountries,moreandmoreattentionhasbeenpaidtolanguageacquisition.Astheessentialpartoflanguage,vocabularyservesasthefoundationinlanguageacquisition.Itisuniversallyagreedthatlanguagelearnersneedtoacquirelargevocabulariessoastobeproficientinalanguage.Asthewidelyquotedremarksgoes,“Withoutgrammar,littlecanbeconveyed;withoutvocabulary,nothingcanbeconveyed”（Wilkins,1972,p.9-10）.

Eversince1990s,manystudiesconcerningvocabularyhavebeencarriedouttoexplorevocabularyacquisitionfromavarietyofperspectives（e.g.,McCarthy,1990;Laufer&Nation,1995;Schmitt,1997）,andmanyofthemhavefocusedonthelanguagelearners’vocabularysize,includingthemeasurementofone’svocabularysize,differentlearningstrategiesinbuildingvocabularysizeandsomeotherrelevantaspects.However,moreandmoreresearchershaverealizedthatvocabularylearningisanincrementalandgraduallyaccumulatedprocess,ratherthanbeinglearnedinadichotomous"notacquired/acquired"way（Meara,1984）,showingthatvocabularyknowledge（VK）isacoinwiththetwosidesofbreadthanddepth,whichmeansthenumberofwordsalearnerknowsandhowwellalearnerknowsaword.Inrecentdecades,muchresearch（Read,1993;Schmmit&Meara,1997;Wesche&Paribakht,1996;DavidQian,2002）hasbeenconductedintothedepthofvocabularyknowledge（DVK）inthefieldofsecondlanguageacquisition（SLA）,makingamajorbreakthroughinthestudyofvocabulary.WhileseveraldomesticstudieshavebeencarriedouttoinvestigatetheDVKofChinesestudentswholearnEnglishasaforeignlanguage（EFL）,thecorrelationbetweenvocabularylearningstrategies（VLS）andtheDVKstillremainsunder-explored,especiallywhenitcomestoEnglishmajors,towhomVLSandDVKareofgreatimportance.

1.2.TheSignificanceandPurposeoftheStudy

Previousstudiesinthefieldofvocabularylearning（Gu&Johnson,1996;Schmitt,1997）haveindicatedthatavarietyofVLSsfacilitatelearners’vocabularylearninginamoreefficientway.ZhouHong（2007）foundthatusingvariousformsofVLSshasasignificantpositiveeffectontheoveralllearningofvocabulary.Thus,itisnecessaryforEnglishmajorstobeawareoftheimportanceofVLSsandtakeadvantageofthemtoenhancetheiroveralllinguisticcompetence.

Ontheotherhand,withthefurtherstudiesintoforeignlanguageteachingandlearning,moreandmoreresearchhasshownthatalearner’sabilityinvocabularydependslargelyonhismasteryovertheDVK.LiXiao（2007）foundthatcomparedtothebreadthofvocabulary,DVKhasbetterpredictabilityofone’scomprehensivelanguageability.It’salsomyownexperiencethatinadequateknowledgeofDVKmayleadtoimproperlanguageuse,evenwithalargeamountofvocabularysize.Soit’snecessarytopaydueattentiontotheaccumulationofDVK.

Asaresult,EFLlearners,suchasEnglishmajors,shouldimprovetheirDVKwitheffectivevocabularylearningstrategies（VLS）.Inordertofillinthegapofpresentresearch,thisstudyaimstofindoutVLSsthatarebeingusedbythejuniorEnglishmajors,thestatusquooftheirDVK,togetherwiththeirpotentialinterrelationship.ThefindingsareexpectedtomakeupforthevoidinstudyofvocabularylearningandshedlightonvocabularyteachingandlearninginandoutsidetheEFLclassroom.

1.3.OrganizationoftheThesis

Thereareatotalof5chaptersinthethesis.Chapteroneintroducesthebackground,theresearchgap,thepurposeabdsignificanceofthepresentstudy.ChaptertwoprovidestheliteraturereviewofthemaintheoriesandstudiesinthefieldofVLSandvocabularyknowledge（VK）,especiallyVDK.Chapter3incorporatesthedetailedinformationaboutthestudy,includingtheresearchquestions,theparticipant,thedatacollectionandanalysis.Inchapter4,descriptivestatisticsaregivenandsummarizedtoconcludetheoverallpatternofVLS,theDVK,andthecorrelationsbetweenthem.Thelastchapterpresentssomemajorfindings,offerssomesuggestionsbasedonthefindingsandpointsoutthelimitationofthepresentstudy.

Chapter2LiteratureReview

Thischapterprovidesacomprehensivereviewofthetheoreticalandempiricalstudiesconcerningthepresentresearch,includingthedefinitionsandclassificationsofVLS,thedefinitionsofVKandtherequiredbackgroundfortheselectionoftheassessmentofDVK.Italsoexamstherelevantpreviousstudiesandpointsoutthelimitationsandtheresearchgap.

2.1.VocabularyLearningStrategy

Sincevocabularylearningisthelearningofaspecificlanguageskill,studiesonVLShavebeenconductedwithinthecontextoflanguagelearningstrategy（LLS）.Forthisreason,itisbothnecessaryandbeneficialtoreviewthestudiesofLLS,whichislikelytoprovidevaluableinsightsintotheunderstandingofVLS.

2.1.1.TheDefinitionsofVocabularyLearningStrategies

BeforedefiningVLS,it’sbettertolookintotheconceptofLLS,whichhasbeendefineddifferentlyaccordingtothedifferentresearchers.Widely-recognizeddefinitionsoftheterm“learningstrategy”areasfollows:

Chamot（ascitedinEllis,1994,p.531）holdsthat"learningstrategiesaretechniques,approachesordeliberateactionsthatstudentstakeinordertofacilitatethelearning,recallofbothlinguisticandcontentareainformation."

Oxford（1990）viewslanguagelearningstrategiesas"specificactions,behaviorssteps,ortechniquesthatstudents（oftenintentionally）usetoimprovetheirprogressindevelopingL2skills.Thesestrategiescanfacilitatetheinternalization,storage,retrieval,oruseofthenewlanguage."

Cohen（2000）holdsthatLLSscanbedefinedastheconsciouslyselectedprocensseswhichmayleadtoactionsthatenhancethelearningofaL2orforeignlanguage,throughthestorage,retention,recall,andapplicationofinformationaboutthatlanguage.

Read（2002）deemslearningstrategies“theexternalskillsthatstudentsuse,oftenconsciously,toimprovetheirlearning".

AlthoughresearchershavenotarrivedataconsensusontheexactdefinitionofLLS,theaforementionedopinionsallshareacommongroundthatLLSsarethestrategiesthatlearnersusetofacilitatetheirlanguagelearning.Inthissense,VLScanbedefinedastechniques,approachesorbehaviorsthatlanguagelearners（oftenintentionally）usetofacilitatetheirvocabularylearning.

2.1.2.TheClassificationsofVocabularyLearningStrategies

Dependingondifferenttheoriesandstandards,thestudiesontheclassificationsofLLSarefacedwithagreatdivergenceofviews.ThissectionwillreviewsomeprominentframeworksthatcategorizeLLSsintheliterature,includingbutarenotrestrictedtothoseofOxford（1990）,O'MalleyandChamot（1990）,andWen（1993）.

Oxford（1990）dividedLLSsintotwobroadcategories:

directandindirectstrategies,andfurtherdividedthemintosixgroups.Theformerreferto“strategiesthatdirectlyinvolvethetargetlanguage”,toputitanotherway,theLLSsthat“requirementalprocessingofthelanguage”（Oxford,1990,p.37）.Theindirectstrategies,ontheotherhand,refertothestrategiesthat“provideindirectsupportforlanguagelearningthroughfocusing,planning,evaluating,seekingopportunities,controllinganxiety,increasingcooperationempathyandothermeans”（Oxford,1990,p.151）.Directstrategiesarefurthersplitintocognitivestrategies,memorystrategiesandcompensationstrategies.AndIndirectstrategiesincorporatemetacognitivestrategies,affectivestrategies,andsocialstrategies.

O’MalleyandChamot（1990）proposedathreefoldclassificationofLLSsbasedontheinformation-processingmodel.Thethreemaincategoriesaremetacognitivestrategies,cognitivestrategiesandsocialaffectivestrategies.Cognitivestrategiesaretheoperationsorstepsapplieddirectlyonincominginformationandmanipulatedinwaysthatimprovelearning,suchasrepetition,note-takingandgrouping.Ontheotherhand,metacognitivestrategies,includingplanmaking,selectiveattention,organizationalplanningandsoon,areusedtoplan,regulate,monitororevaluatelearningactivitiesaffectivelyandcognitively.Theyarestrategiesofahigherlevelbecausetheygoverntheuseofcognitivestrategies.Lastbutnotleast,socialaffectivestrategiesareusedtoassistalearningactivitywhenlear