中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究

中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究

图书基本信息
出版时间:2012-5
出版社:科学出版社
作者:赵晨
页数:280
字数:429375
书名:中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究
封面图片
中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究
内容概要
Representation and Processing of English Lexical Ambiguity by Chinese EFL Learners(中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究)从词汇语义表征形成与发展的角度,探讨了中国英语学习者在词汇表征建构的不同阶段、词汇多义不同纬度(三种歧义词)的通达特征。研究发现,中国英语学习者的歧义词表征是一个发展的模式:同形歧义词和转喻多义词的心理表征随学习者英语水平的提高而更具分立性;但在转喻多义这个维度上,词义之间的联系强度不是随着语言水平的提高而减弱,而是相反。就不同歧义词的通达特征而言,中国英语学习者通达三种歧义词的特点相同,都遵循顺序通达模式。这充分体现了基于用法理论的语言学习观。
书籍目录
Contents前言AbstractChapter
1
Introduction1.1
Research
Orientation1.2
Definition
of
Lexical
Ambiguity1.3
Rationale
for
the
Study1.4
Research
QuestionsChapter
2
Previous
Studies
of
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution:General
Issues2.1
Introduction2.2
Meaning
Representation2.2.1
Hierarchical
Network
Models2.2.2
Activation
Spreading
Models2.2.3
Distributed
Memory
Model2.3
Word
Recognition
and
Lexical
Access2.3.1
The
Search
Model2.3.2
The
Logogen
Model2.3.3
The
Cohort
Model2.3.4
Factors
Influencing
Lexical
Access2.4
Semantic
Priming2.5
Second
Language
Lexicon2.6
SummaryChapter
3
Previous
Studies
of
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution:Theoretical
Models
and
Empirical
Evidence3.1
Introduction3.2
Previous
Studies
of
Homonymy
Processing
in
L13.2.1
Fodor's
Modularity
Hypothesis3.2.2
Five
Models
of
Homonymy
Processing
in
L13.3
Previous
Studies
of
Suppression
Mechanism
in
Homonymy
Processing3.4
Previous
Studies
of
Homonymy
Processing
in
L23.5
Previous
Studies
of
Polysemy
Processing
in
L13.5.1
Representation
of
Polysemous
Words3.5.2
Previous
Studies
of
Polysemy
Effects3.5.3
Processing
of
Polysemy
in
L13.6
Previous
Studies
of
Polysemy
Processing
in
L23.7
Comments
on
the
Previous
Studies
of
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution3.8
SummaryChapter
4
Previous
Studies
of
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution:Experimental
Tasks4.1
Introduction4.2
Experimental
Techniques4.2.1
Ambiguity
Detection
Method4.2.2
Processing
Complexity
Tasks4.2.3
Priming
Paradigm4.3
The
Nature
of
Sentential
Context4.4
The
SOA
Conditions4.5
Comments
on
the
Experimental
Tasks4.6
SummaryChapter
5
Research
Questions
and
Hypotheses5.1
Introduction5.2
Linguistic
and
Psycholinguistic
Models
Related
to
the
Present
Study5.2.1
Ambiguous
Words
in
Mind:Linguistic
Models5.2.2
Disambiguation
of
Lexical
Ambiguity:Psycholinguistic
Models5.3
Research
Questions5.4
Hypotheses5.5
Experimental
Design
and
Predictions5.5.1
Experiment
One5.5.2
Experiment
Two5.5.3
Experiment
Three5.6
SummaryChapter
6
Experiment
One:Selecting
Contextually
Appropriate
Meanings6.1
Introduction6.2
Preparatory
Studies6.2.1
Preparatory
Study
I6.2.2
Preparatory
Study
II6.2.3
Preparatory
Study
III6.3
Experiment
One6.3.1
Hypothesis,Design
and
Predictions6.3.2
Participants6.3.3
Materials6.3.4
Procedure6.3.5
Results6.3.6
Discussion6.4
SummaryChapter
7
Experiment
Two:Suppressing
Contextually
Inappropriate
Meanings7.1
Introduction7.2
Experiment
Two7.2.1
Hypothesis,Design
and
Predictions7.2.2
Participants7.2.3
Material7.2.4
Procedure7.2.5
Results7.2.6
Discussion7.3
SummaryChapter
8
Experiment
Three:Representation
of
English
Lexical
Ambiguity8.1
Introduction8.2
Experiment
Three8.2.1
Hypothesis,Design
and
Predictions8.2.2
Participants8.2.3
Materials8.2.4
Procedure8.2.5
Results8.2.6
Discussion8.3
SummaryChapter
9
General
Discussions9.1
Introduction9.2
Discussion
of
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution
Theories9.2.1
L2
Processing
of
Homographs:The
Ordered-Access
Model9.2.2
L2
Processing
of
Metonymic
Polysemy:Specified,Not
Underspecified9.2.3
Comparison
of
the
Processing
of
Different
Ambiguous
Words9.3
L2
Lexical
Ambiguity
Resolution
and
Reading
Comprehension9.4
SummaryChapter
10
Conclusions10.1
Introduction10.2
Conclusions10.2.1
Conclusions
about
the
Experiments10.2.2
A
Unified
Picture
for
L2
Resolution
of
Lexical
Ambiguity10.3
Limitations
and
Suggestions
for
Future
Studies10.3.1
Limitations10.3.2
Suggestions
for
Future
Studies10.4
Implications10.4.1
Theoretical
Implications10.4.2
Pedagogical
Implications10.5
SummaryBibliographyAppendicesAppendix
A:Ambiguous
Words
for
JudgmentAppendix
B:A
Sample
of
Materials
Used
in
Preparatory
Study
IIAppendix
C:Dominance
and
Familiarity
of
the
Ambiguous
MeaningsAppendix
D:Primes
with
Sentential
Contexts
and
Their
TargetsAppendix
E:The
Sense
Relatedness
QuestionnaireList
of
Tables3-1
Experimental
Materials
Used
in
Swinney(1979)3-2
Example
Sentences
Used
in
Frazier
&
Rayner(1990)3-3
Sample
Sentences
Used
in
Pickering
&
Frisson(2001)5-1
Kinds
of
Evidence
Adduced
by
Croft5-2
Predictions
of
Experiment
One5-3
Predictions
of
Interference
Effects
of
Experiment
Two6-1
Word
Length
and
Frequency
of
Related
and
Unrelated
Primes6-2
Tests
of
Word
Length
of
Related
and
Unrelated
Primes6-3
Tests
of
Frequency
of
Related
and
Unrelated
Primes6-4
Participant
Data
in
Terms
of
Age
and
Language
Skills6-5
Results
of
One-Way
ANOVA
Tests
of
Participants'Data
between
200
ms
Group
and
500
ms
Group6-6
Results
of
One-Way
ANOVA
Test
of
Participants'Data
between
High
and
Low
Proficiency
Group6-7
Sample
Materials
for
Experiment
One6-8
Distribution
of
Participants
and
Experiment
Trials6-9
Data
Deleted
due
to
Incorrect
Response,Outliers
and
Unknown
Meanings6-10
Mean
RT(ms),SD(ms)and
Errors
by
SOA,Subject
Group,Frequency,Ambiguity
Type
and
Sentence
Type6-11
Tests
of
Within-Subjects
Effects(by
participants)6-12
Tests
of
Between-Subjects
Effects(by
participants)6-13
Tests
of
Between-Subjects
Effects(by
items)6-14
Tests
of
Within-Subjects
Effects(by
items)6-15
The
Results
of
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
by
Dominance
and
Context(By
participants)6-16
The
Results
of
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
by
Dominance
and
Context(By
items)6-17
Priming
Patterns
across
Proficiency
Group
and
SOA
Condition7-1
Participants'Data
in
Terms
of
Age
and
Language
Skills7-2
Results
of
One-Way
ANOVA
Tests
of
Participants'Data
between
200
ms
and
500
ms7-3
Results
of
One
Way
ANOVA
Tests
of
Participants'Data
between
High
and
Low
Proficiency
Group7-4
A
Sample
of
Materials
for
Experiment
Two7-5
Data
Deleted
Due
to
Outliers
and
Unknown
Meanings7-6
Mean
RTs(ms)to
Related
and
Unrelated
Targets
across
Proficiency,ISI,Ambiguity
Type
and
Dominance7-7
Tests
of
Within-Subjects
Effects(by
participants)7-8
Tests
of
Between-Subjects
Effects(by
participants)7-9
Tests
of
Within-Subjects
Effects(by
item)7-10
Tests
of
Between-Subjects
Effects(by
item)7-11
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Homograph
Targets(by
participants)7-12
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Homograph
Targets(by
items)7-13
Step-Down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Metaphoric
Polysem
Targets(by
participants)7-14
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Metaphoric
Polysem
Targets(by
items)7-15
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Metonymic
Polysem
Targets(by
participants)7-16
Step-down
Analysis
of
Relatedness
for
Metonymic
Polysem
Targets(by
items)7-17
Mean
PC(percentage
of
correctness)and
SD
by
ISI,Proficiency,Meaning
Frequency
and
Sentence
Type7-18
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test
of
Normality(by
participants)7-19
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test
of
Normality(by
items)7-20
Results
of
Wilcoxon
Sign
Ranks
Test
for
the
By-Participants
Data7-21
Wilcoxon
Sign
Ranks
Test
or
ANOVA
Test
for
the
By-Items
Data7-22
Interference
Patterns
Obtained
from
RT
and
PC
Analysis8-1
Mean
Scores
across
Proficiency
and
Ambiguity
Type8-2
Results
of
ANOVA
Tests
of
Between-Subjects
Effects8-3
Analysis
of
Variance
of
the
Scores
for
the
Low
Proficiency
Group8-4
Analysis
of
Variance
of
the
Scores
for
the
High
Proficiency
Group8-5
Post
Hoc
Tests
for
Data
of
Low
Proficiency
Group8-6
Post
Hoc
Tests
for
Data
of
High
Proficiency
Group8-7
Analysis
of
Variance
of
Scores
for
Homonymy
between
Low
and
High
Proficiency
Group8-8
Analysis
of
Variance
of
Scores
for
Metaphoric
Polysemy
between
Low
and
High
Proficiency
Group8-9
Analysis
of
Variance
of
Scores
for
Metonymic
Polysemy
between
Low
and
High
Proficiency
GroupList
of
Figures1-1
Classification
of
Lexical
Ambiguity2-1
Processing
Modules
in
the
Distributed
Memory
Model(Masson,1995:5)2-2
Word
Recognition
in
Forster's
Search
Model3-1
A
Continuum
of
the
Five
Models5-1
Croft's
Representation
Model
of
Ambiguous
Words5-2
Tuggy's
Model
of
Polysemic
Representation5-3
A
Model
of
Homonymy
and
Polysemy
Representation5-4
An
Alternative
Model
of
Ambiguous
Representation5-5
A
Developmental
Model
of
Chinese
EFL
learners'Ambiguous
Representation6-1
A
Sample
of
E-Prime
Program
of
Experiment
One8-1
A
Developmental
Model
of
EFL
Ambiguous
Representation9-1
L2
Representation
of
Homonymy9-2
L2
Representation
of
Metonymic
Polysemy9-3
A
High-Quality
Representation
for
the
Word
Gate(Cited
from
Perfetti
&
Hart,2002:70)
章节摘录
  A
further
consideration
about
the
individual
words
in
the
context
is
that
such
words
may
directly
prime
a
target,
speeding
up
responses
to
it
(Simpson
&
Krueger,
1991).
According
to
this
hypothesis,
accessis
context
insensitive,
and
in
a
priming
paradigm,
the
ambiguous
word
will
effectively
prime
the
related
targets
regardless
of
context.One
problem
of
this
hypothesis
is
that
lexical
priming
is
short-lived,and
unless
the
relevant
word
immediately
precedes
the
ambiguity,
itis
most
unlikely
that
it
can
exert
an
effect
on
the
target
(Neely,
1991).Furthermore,
Tabossi's
(1988)
findings
suggested
that
the
selective.effects
after
the
constraining
contexts
were
not
produced
by
individ-ual
words
assoaated
with
the
dominant
meaning
of
the
ambiguity
and
corroborate
the
hypothesis
of
a
genuine
effect
of
context.
In
gen-eral,
there
are
findings
in
the
literature
that
suggest
that
the
effect
of
context
cannot
be
reduced
to
lexical
phenomena.  More
recently,
there
arises
a
dispute
on
the
effect
of
contextualstrength
between
two
currently
developed
models:
the
reordered
ac-cess
model
and
the
context-sensitive
model
(Binder,
1999;
Binder
&Rayner,
1998;
Kellas
&
Vu,
1999).
According
to
both
models,
relativemeaning
frequency
and
contextual
bias
are
important
variables
in
the
resolution
of
lexical
amloiguity.
Two
important
findings
have
emergedby
the
reordered
access
model.
First,
when
readers
encounter
a
bal-anced
ambiguous
word
(a
word
with
two
equally
frequent
in
terpreta-tions)
in
a
neutral
context,
they
look
at
that
word
longer
than
at
a
con-trol
word
that
is
matched
on
length
and
frequency.  ……
编辑推荐
  《中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究》目前的研究主要探讨母语的词汇歧义消解过程,二语习得者的词汇歧义消解过程还没有得到应有的重视;另外,按照理论语言学的解释,歧义词应该包括同形异义词(homograph)、同音异义词(homop}lone)和多义词(polvsems)。多义词有可分为隐喻性多义词和转喻性多义词。目前的研究讨论了同形异义词和同音异义词的歧义消除,很少提及多义词的歧义消除。当然这也是本书着重解决的问题。《中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究》从词汇语义表征形成与发展的角度,探讨了中国英语学习者在词汇表征建构的不同阶段、词汇多义不同纬度(三种歧义词)的通达特征。它由十章组成。除了第一章的“导言”和第十章的“结论”以外,其他八章为本书的主体。
下载链接

中国英语学习者歧义词表征与加工研究下载

评论与打分
    暂无评论