《英语语言文化论文英语专业大学生写作中的词汇产出变化研究.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《英语语言文化论文英语专业大学生写作中的词汇产出变化研究.doc（3页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、英语专业大学生写作中的词汇产出变化研究 英语专业大学生写作中的词汇产出变化研究 A Study of Productive Lexical Competence in English Writing for English Majors【中文摘要】 本文旨在研究英语专业本科学生写作中产出性词汇能力的变化轨迹,为学生的产出性词汇能力的发展提供指导,为英语专业教师的词汇教学提供启示。英语专业学生的词汇能力不仅反映在词汇量和词汇知识方面,而且也应该反映在运用这些知识进行有效的接受和产出活动中。英语专业的学生随着年级的增长,能识别大量词汇,但在说或写的产出活动中并不能使用或使用好一大部分这些词。有研究
2、学者认为这是外语学习过程中产出性词汇发生了僵化现象。本研究选取五十五名英语专业的学生为测试对象,分别在三个学期对他们进行了写作能力的测试。本文以定量研究的方式,从词汇的丰富性(词汇变化和词频概貌两个方面)、词缀、搭配和用词恰当性这四个维度调查学生在书面作文中产出性词汇的变化状况。词汇变化以一篇作文中所使用的原型词数量占总词数的比例表示,词频概貌以作文中所使用的高频词汇和低频词汇占总词数的比例表示。学生作文中的词缀、搭配和用词恰当性指标通过错误分析的方式表示。研究结果表明英语专业的学生在词汇产出能力的四个方面呈现不规律的变化状况。词汇丰富性从第三学期到第五学期呈现出先进步后退步的情况,应证了“僵
3、化现象”。但学生使用词缀的能力连续三个学期保持提高态势,不存在僵化现象。学生的词汇搭配能力显现出持续降低的变化,但在第五学期下降程度明显趋缓,出现转机,因此僵化现象也没有出现。学生的用词准确性呈现出先小幅下降后大幅增强的变化,同样僵化现象也没有出现。本研究表明英语专业的学生在产出性词汇的四个维度方面的发展存在不均衡性,僵化现象的判断过于笼统,而所谓“二年级现象”也没有充分根据。本文指出英语专业学生词汇量的扩大并不意味着产出性词汇能力的提高。因此,在教学中师生双方都应注意学生产出性词汇能力的提高。本研究表明英语专业高年级阶段应继续加强语言能力的训练。【英文摘要】 This thesis aims
4、 to study the development of English majorsproductive lexical competence in writing. It can give some advice on productive lexical competence development for English majors and offer some inspiration for teachers involved in vocabulary teaching. The lexical competence of English majors reflects not
5、only in the size of their vocabulary and their word knowledge, but also in their receptive and productive competence. The vocabulary of English majors grows as they proceed from the first academic year to the fourth academic year. However, they can not use their vocabulary efficiently in their oral
6、communication or writing. Some scholars maintain that second language learners can meet fossilization in their productive lexical competence. Moreover, some researchers believe the Chinese English majors can meet the“second-year phenomenon”which is a variation of fossilization.This research has chos
7、en fifty-five English majors as the subjects. They received a test in writing at the end of the third, the fourth, and the fifth terms. The research measures the subjectsproductive lexical competence in four dimensions: word richness (composed of lexical variation and lexical frequency profile), der
8、ivational affixes, lexical collocation and appropriateness. The studentscomposition are keyed into the computer and analyzed by VocabProfile to find out the changes in word richness. Lexical variation is indicated by the family/token ratio, while lexical frequency profile is shown by percentage of h
9、igh frequency words and low frequency words in a composition. The tool of error analysis is used to measure the subjectsperformance in derivational affixes, lexical collocation and appropriateness. The errors of every type made by the subjects in the three terms are counted and standardized. The res
10、earch finds that the four dimensions of the subjectsproductive competence have witnessed different changes in the three terms. Word richness of the subjects increased first and then decreased, so subjects seemed to meet fossilization in this dimension. The derivational lexical performance of the sub
11、jects kept increasing throughout the three terms, showing no signs of fossilization. The subjectserrors in collocation increased from the third to the fourth term and then leveled off. The subjectslexical competence in appropriateness experienced a decline from the third to the fourth term and then
12、witnessed a significant increase from the fourth to the fifth term. The research shows that the subjects experienced an unbalanced development in their four dimensions of productive lexical competence, and therefore fossilization or the“second-year phenomenon”is not supported in this research.The re
13、search points out that the expansion of vocabulary does not necessarily mean the increase in productive lexical competence. Therefore, both teachers and students of English majors should pay enough attention to the development of the latters productive lexical competence. More important, with the in
14、crease in the specialized courses and the corresponding decrease in language training courses in the third and fourth academic years, both teachers and students tend to ignore oral and written practices. This research indicates that language training should continue to be emphasized for English majo
15、rs in the third and fourth academic years. 【中文关键词】 英语专业; 词汇产出能力; 英文写作; 僵化 【英文关键词】 English majors; productive lexical competence; English writing; fossilization 【毕业论文目录】Abstract 6-7 摘要 8-9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 9-15 1 Introduction 15-19 1.1 Need for the study 15-17 1.1.1 Theoretical Importance 16 1.1.2 Pr
16、actical importance 16-17 1.2 Research questions 17-18 1.3 The Organization of the Thesis 18-19 2 Theoretical Frameworks 19-35 2.1 Productive lexical competence 19 2.2 The Theoretical Background 19-25 2.2.1 Word knowledge 19-23 2.2.2 Receptive Vocabulary and Productive Vocabulary 23-24 2.2.3 Fossiliz
17、ation 24-25 2.3 Review of relevant empirical studies 25-28 2.4 Review of relevant measurements 28-35 2.4.1 The dimensions measured in previous research 28-29 2.4.2 The four dimensions measured in this research 29-35 3 Research Design 35-43 3.1 Subjects 35-36 3.2 Tools of Analysis 36-39 3.2.1 The Too
18、l to Test Word Richness 36 3.2.2 The Tool Used to Test the Other Three Dimensions 36-39 3.3 Procedures of Data Collection 39-40 3.3.1 Assignments and Collection 39 3.3.2 Input 39-40 3.3.3 Error Location 40 3.4 Data Analysis 40-43 3.4.1 Measurement of Word Richness: LV and LFP 40-41 3.4.2 Measurement
19、 of Lexical Errors in Derivational Affixes,Lexical Collocation, and Appropriateness 41-43 4 Results and Discussions 43-55 4.1. The Changes in Word Richness and the Discussion 43-48 4.1.1 The Results of Lexical Variation 43-44 4.1.2 The Results of Lexical Frequency Profile 44-47 4.1.3 Discussion of t
20、he changes in word richness 47-48 4.2 The Changes in Derivational Affix Errors and the Discussion 48-50 4.2.1 The Changes in Derivational Affix Errors 48-49 4.2.2 The Discussion 49-50 4.3 Results of Lexical Collocation Errors and the Discussion 50-52 4.3.1 Results of Lexical Collocation Errors 50-51
21、 4.3.2 The Discussion 51-52 4.4 Results of Appropriateness Errors and the Discussion 52-54 4.4.1 Results of Appropriateness Errors 52-53 4.4.2 The Discussion 53-54 4.5 The Overall Development Pattern of the SubjectsProductive Lexical Competence and the Discussion 54-55 5 Conclusions and Implications
22、 55-60 5.1 Major Findings 55-56 5.2 Implications 56-58 5.2.1 Theoretical Implications 56 5.2.2 Methodological Implications 56-57 5.2.3 Practical Implications 57-58 5.3 Limitations 58 5.4 Recommendations for Further Research 58-60 References 60-64 Appendix Topics for Writing Tests 64-65 Appendix Sample compositions 65-67 Appendix Derivational Affix Errors 67-68 Appendix Lexical Collocation Errors 68-69 Appendix Appropriateness errors 69
