【作者】 刘彩霞；

【导师】 赵静；

【作者基本信息】 河北师范大学 ， 学科教学（英语）（专业学位）， 2021， 硕士

【摘要】 如何有效促进学习者词汇习得一直是二语习得研究的重点内容之一。近些年来,国内外学者们围绕词汇附带习得展开了大量的探讨和研究。其中,基于Laufer和Hulstijn(2001)所提出的投入量假说的研究最受青睐。该假说认为:任务所诱发的投入量越大,学习者的词汇附带习得效果就越好。Laufer和Hulstijn(2001,2003)的实验也曾支持了这一假说。然而,过去20年来,该假说的有效性却引起了国内外研究者的不同看法,有人赞同,也有人质疑。鉴于此,该假说是否成立值得进一步的验证和探讨。本研究以投入量假说和深加工理论为基础,以高中生为研究对象,通过探究阅读任务投入量对高中生英语词汇附带习得的影响来验证任务投入量假说是否成立。本研究旨在回答以下三个问题:(1)不同投入量的阅读任务对高中生英语词汇附带习得即时效果和延时效果有何影响?(2)相同投入量的阅读任务对高中生英语词汇附带习得即时效果和延时效果有何影响?(3)每一任务的词汇附带习得的即时效果和延时效果之间是否有差异?如果有,差异如何?本研究以某校高二年级英语水平相当的75名学生为研究对象,将他们随机划分为三个小组,每个小组的学生需要完成不同的学习任务。其中,三个组的任务分别是:阅读与附有词汇表的选词填空(1组),阅读与无词汇表的选词填空(2组),阅读与附有词汇表的造句(3组)。三项任务的投入量大小分别为:2,3,3。在任务结束后,所有被试立即接受了即时测试,一周后接受了延迟测试,两次测试的内容相同但词汇的顺序不同。此外,每次测试后,研究者从每组随机抽取三名受试进行访谈,将其结果作为实验的补充数据。实验完成后用SPSS 23.0进行数据分析。结果显示:(1)不同投入量的阅读任务对高中生英语词汇附带习得即时效果和延时效果影响不同。总体而言,任务诱发的投入量越大,学习者词汇附带习得的即时效果和延时效果就越好。这一结果支持了投入量假说。(2)相同投入量的阅读任务对高中生英语词汇附带习得即时效果和延时效果影响不同。这一结果与投入量假说相悖。(3)每一项任务的即时效果和延时效果之间均存在显著性差异,即时效果均显著好于延时效果,这说明词汇知识的遗忘存在于每一任务组中,其中,阅读与无词汇表的选词填空任务组遗忘最多。本研究的实验结果具有一定的理论意义和实践意义。在理论方面,它为任务投入量假说和词汇附带习得研究提供了实证证据。在实践方面,通过运用词汇附带习得的方法,师生可以更加灵活有效的进行词汇的教与学。此外,研究结果启示,教师需要有意识地引导学生对新学词汇进行及时的复习和巩固,以便能够达到良好的词汇保持效果。更多还原

【Abstract】 How to promote learners’ vocabulary acquisition has been a major concern of second language acquisition research.In recent years,scholars at home and abroad have conducted numerous studies and explorations on Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition.Among them,the researches based on Involvement Load Hypothesis which was proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn(2001)are the most popular.The hypothesis holds that activities with more task-induced involvement load(IL)would result in better vocabulary acquisition.The experiments of Laufer and Hulstijn(2001,2003)have also verified this hypothesis.However,in the past 20 years,the validity of the hypothesis has aroused different opinions among international and domestic counterparts,i.e.some researchers agree with it,while others question it.In view of this,how successful the hypothesis is must be a worthwhile issue which needs further verifications and discussions.On the strength of Involvement Load Hypothesis(ILH)and The Theory of Depths of Processing,this research endeavors to testify the validity of Involvement Load Hypothesis by exploring the effects of reading task involvement load on IVA of senior high school students.This research aims to answer the following three questions:(1)What are the effects of reading tasks with different involvement loads on IVA in immediate and delayed test?(2)What are the effects of reading tasks with same involvement load on IVA in immediate and delayed test?(3)Is there a difference between the immediate effects and delayed effects on IVA for each task? If yes,what are the differences?In this research,75 subjects of the same English proficiency from Grade Two were divided into three groups randomly.Participants in each group were required to complete different reading tasks--reading + filling in the blanks with glossary(Group 1),reading + filling in the blanks without glossary(Group 2),reading + sentence-making with glossary(Group 3).The amount of involvement load for three tasks is 2,3,3 respectively.After the treatment,all participants received immediate tests instantly.Then one weeks later,the delayed tests were conducted.The content of two tests was same but the order of vocabulary was different.Moreover,the researcher interviewed three subjects randomly from each group after each test,and the results were used as supplementary data for the experiment.After the whole treatment was completed,SPSS 23.0 was utilized for data analysis.The results show:(1)Reading tasks with different involvement loads exert significantly different effects on IVA in immediate and delayed test.In general,the higher involvement load a task induces,the better the learner’s IVA effects are.This result fully supports the Involvement Load Hypothesis.(2)Reading tasks with same involvement load have significantly different effects on IVA in immediate and delayed test.This result refutes Involvement Load Hypothesis.(3)There is a significant difference between immediate effects and delayed effects on IVA for each task,and immediate effects are significantly better than delayed effects.It implies that vocabulary loss exists in each group.Among them,reading plus blank-filling without glossary task has the most vocabulary loss.The present study produces certain theoretical and pedagogical significance.Theoretically,it provides empirical evidence to ILH and IVA.Pedagogically,teachers and students can develop vocabulary more effectively and flexibly via IVA.In addition,the research indicates that teachers need to guide students to review and consolidate the newly-learned vocabulary consciously in time to achieve satisfying retention effects.更多还原