论文总字数：42193字

摘 要

在二语习得研究领域，哪些因素影响二语者词汇习得是一项有较高研究价值的课题。以往研究就任务类型和主题熟悉度, 个人性格和二语学习者学习动机等因素对于词汇习得的影响进行了分析，但就二语学习者的二语水平对词汇习得的影响研究甚少。同样，就任务类型和二语水平这两个变量之间的交互作用研究几近于空白。因此，本文旨在调查任务类型和二语水平是否对二语学习者词汇习得有主效应。

本篇论文主要解决以下几个问题：

问题一,任务类型是否对二语学习者词义习得有主影响？

问题二,二语水平是否对二语学习者词义习得有主影响？

问题三，任务类型和二语水平对二语学习者词义习得是否有交互作用？

来自南京晓庄学院的80名学生参加了调查。最初，根据这80名学生的高考英语成绩，他们的二语水平被划分为两个组别(高水平组合低水平组)。然后，这些受试者被平均分配到两个组，分别完成两个不同的任务类型（输入任务和输出任务），在不同的任务类型中有18个目标词需要受试者掌握。而目标词就是用来调查对于目标词的及时习得情况的。

本研究采用双向方差分析回答研究问题。

主要研究发现如下：

1. 任务类型对词汇习得有主效应 (F = 13.77, p = .00 lt; .05)。就高水平而言，输入任务中的词汇习得平均数是1.60个，输出任务中的词汇习得平均数是3.82个。就低水平而言，输入任务中的词汇习得平均数是1.60个，输出任务中的词汇习得平均数是3.87个。另外，不论水平高低，输入任务的词汇习得总平均数是1.60个，输出任务的词汇习得总平均数是3.85个。这些结果表明输出任务比输入任务更容易习得词汇。换句话说，这也证明了这一假设：任务类型对词汇习得有主效应

2. 二语水平对词汇习得没有主效应 (F = .00, p = .970 gt; .05)。这也许是因为此研究中来自同一大学的参与者，是同类的，他们在二语水平上的差别不是那么大。

3. 任务类型和学习者的二语水平之间的交互效应在词汇习得方面不存在 (F = .00, p = .970 gt; .05)。这意味着只有任务类型对二语学习者词汇习得有影响，二语水平对此没影响。

本研究对外语教学和外语学习方面有意义。不仅帮助二语学习者在词汇习得方面找到一个更切实的途径，还指导教师在词汇教学上找到一个更有效的方法。在二语教学上，输出导向型任务应该更常被用来扩大二语学习者的词汇知识。

关键词： 任务类型 二语水平 词汇习得

1. Introduction

Candline claimed that vocabulary acquisition is the learning of new words as a by-product of a meaning-focused communicative activity, such as reading, listening, and interaction. It consists of the acquisition of lexical, semantic, phonetic and phonological features of new words, and so on. Vocabulary acquisition is considered to be an aspect of language learning and teaching by many learners so it has drawn the attention of linguists and educators. During the past few decades, numerous theoretical descriptions and studies have been accomplished on vocabulary acquisition both at home and abroad (Laufer, B. amp; J. Hulstijn, 2001; Yang Lianrui, 2012). However, much fewer studies have been made on analysis of effects of different L2 language proficiency levels on acquisition of L2 word meanings, which leads to the lack of measures to different groups. Accordingly, my study mainly focuses on the effects of different L2 language proficiency levels on vocabulary acquisition.

• 1. Need for the study

Sternberg (1987) states that the greatest part of our own vocabulary has been acquired as a result of encountering words in a certain context or situation. With the increasing familiarity with L2, the acquisition of L2 vocabulary converts into the bond of L2 vocabulary’s forms as well as representation and shared word meanings. Based on the statement, it is believed that it is a considerably efficient way to learn L2 word meanings by means of acquiring L2 vocabularies.

In the past several decades, numerous professional studies have been made on vocabulary acquisition both at home and abroad (Laufer, B. amp; J. Hulstijn. 2001; Zhang Ping, 2006; Yang Lianrui, 2012), especially on the impact of task type on vocabulary acquisition (Wu Liping, 2008; Wang yin, 2011; Jiang Jingyi, 2013). However, much fewer researches have been accomplished on analysis of influence of different L2 language proficiency levels on vocabulary acquisition, which leads to the lack of measures to different groups. As a result, research needs to be carried out at different L2 language proficiency levels so that EFL learners could acquire L2 wording meanings more quickly and efficiently.

Additionally, nowadays, vocabulary studies usually aim at finding a practical way to help L2 learners acquire vocabulary, guide teachers to find a more effective method of vocabulary teaching. So my current study should be undertaken because it will lead L2 teachers to rethink how to achieve effective vocabulary teaching: besides different tasks designed to facilitate L2 learners’ acquisition of vocabulary, L2 teachers may have to take L2 learners’ individual differences and time into consideration.

1.2 Research purpose

The present study is intended to examine the acquisition of EFL learners’ L2 vocabulary. Concretely, the purpose of this study is to find out the effects of task type and L2 proficiency on EFL learners’ vocabulary acquisition, while at the same time to find out whether there are interactions of effects of task type and L2 proficiency on acquisition of L2 vocabulary.

1. Literature review

This chapter mainly discusses current situation concerning L2 vocabulary acquisition, related professional researches conducted so far, and then the problems or the defects of the previous studies are pointed out in this chapter.

2.1 Theories about L2 vocabulary acquisition

2.1.1 Current situation concerning L2 vocabulary acquisition

As an emerging branch of learning, L2 vocabulary acquisition, since1970s, have been attached great importance. The range and depth of this study are strengthening constantly. A wide range of this research topic has been studied from four aspects (Ellis, 1996): (1) Interlanguage research. It mainly studies learner’s mistakes, acquisition order, development order, language variability and pragmatic communication features of second language; (2) External factors research, including L2 input environment, quality and quantity of input, L2 output as well as interactions of various external factors; (3) Cognitive mechanisms research. It includes mentally cognitive process, L1 transference process, cognitive construction process and concomitant factors in language and so on; (4) L2 learner’s internal factors research. It covers psychology, physilogy, cognition, emotion, cross-cultural issues and individual differences.

2.1.2 Involvement Load Hypothesis

Laufer and Hulstijn put forward “Involvement Load Hypothesis” to function as the criterion of measuring learning tasks effects on vocabulary acquisition. The different effects result from the different cognitive processing degrees while learners finish different learning tasks (Yin Xiaojuan, Lin Qinming, 2009). According to Hulstijn and Laufer (2001), the involvement load of a given task is determined by the sum of the scores for need, search, and evaluation, and this value is called the task’s involvement index, the total possible range of which for any task is 0 (minimum) to 5 (maximum). The Involvement Load Hypothesis claims that the higher the level of the involvement load, the more effective the task is in acquiring vocabulary.

2.1.3 Input and Out Hypothesis

In 1980s, Krashen brought forward “Input Hypothesis”, which claims language input is a primary concern for acquiring L2 vocabulary. Krashen claims that comprehensible input is a necessary condition for SLA. However, although Krashen maintains that comprehensible input is all that is needed for language acquisition to happen, Long (1985) claims that comprehensible input is necessary but not sufficient for language acquisition. The central issue with regard to input is the form it needs to take for acquisition to occur and how much of the input can actually become comprehended language that is beneficial to SLA.

Swain (1985, cited in Ellis, 2001) argues for the importance of comprehensible output in the SLA process and puts forward the Output Hypothesis, which insists on the distinct influence of language output in L2 vocabulary acquisition. She argues that when learners are “pushed" to produce output that is concise and appropriate, they are forced into making use of the kind of “syntactic processing” needed for acquisition. In this way, they may come to "notice the gap" between the forms they use in their output and the forms present in the input. According to the Output Hypothesis, learners need to seek for chances for output in the process of facilitating SLA. That is, when learners have the opportunity to produce target items they are more likely to acquire them.

2.2 Empirical studies of different factors affecting L2 vocabulary acquisition

2.2.1 Previous studies on the effects of task type on L2 vocabulary acquisition

Many linguists study the impacts of task type on L2 vocabulary acquisition. For example, based on theories of “Involvement Load Hypothesis” and “Output Hypothesis”, 127 students are asked to finish three tasks, including cloze, translation and writing. From the aspect of short-term or long-term effects, “the experimental results show that translation and writing are much more efficient than cloze; while from the aspect of time that spent on finish tasks, advantages of translation and writing weaken” (Xie Wenqiao, 2013, p.34). “With same involvement Load, output tasks are much more useful to acquire L2 vocabulary than input tasks” (Wang Yin, 2011, p.13). “Different reading tasks have access to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. On this point, output tasks can help EFL learners acquire L2 vocabulary more easily than input tasks” (Wu Liping amp; Zhou Weijing, 2007, p.10). Based on theory of Involvement Load Hypothesis, it is proved that compared with tasks of little involvement Load, “heavy involvement Load can help EFL learners remember target words better” (Zhou Hao, 2006, p.66).

In 2012, Chen Weiming mainly focused on two variables, i.e., input task and output task. The participants were 124 freshmen from three intact classes from Shandong Yingcai College, whose English proficiency was at the same level basically. They were divided into three groups: the R Group, the R I group, and the R I O Group. The whole experiment consisted of one pretest, one immediate posttest, one prolonged posttest and one final posttest, with all the experiment materials taken from the Second Volume of Twenty-Fist Century Practical College English. Experiment data was collected and analyzed, and the results were discussed.

The research findings indicate that reading without vocabulary enhanced input does benefit vocabulary acquisition, but the impact is not significant; reading with enhanced input is significantly helpful to acquiring new words, especially in short term; vocabulary enhanced input reading task combined with vocabulary output task proves a very effective way of acquiring new words.

2.2.2 Previous studies on the effects of topic familiarity on L2 vocabulary acquisition

Topic familiarity also seems to play an important role in vocabulary acquisition. The researches on learning word meanings from the context have shown that it is harder to learn a word for a new concept than a word which is simply a new label for a familiar concept (Nagy, et al., 1987; Sheffelbine, 1990). Diakidoy’s research (1993) found that participants’ familiarity with the passage had a significant effect on learning word meanings. Nagy (1997) claimed that adult L2 learners may possess substantial knowledge not available to younger first-language. Based on this, Pulido (2004) pointed out that in most cases of learning L2 word meaning, it involved mapping new lexical forms to familiar meanings or concepts already in the existing semantic or conceptual system. Parry's study (1997) illustrated that the participant's success of acquiring L2 word meaning resulted greatly from texts on a topic in which he had rich and extensive knowledge and was familiar with the topic.

Others’ studies find out that no matter in translation test or choice test, topic familiarity just has an outstanding influence on acquiring timely vocabulary and it has no effect on remembering vocabulary; But what can be affirmed is that EFL learners can acquire and remember more L2 vocabulary when reading fimiliar elucidation text than reading unfamiliar elucidation text (Zhang Yujiao, 2009). Topic familiarity has a significantly positive effect on lexical inferring but a significantly negative effect on lexical retention. “Reading passages with familiar topics will enhance lexical inferring but reading passages with unfamiliar topics will better facilitate lexical retention” (Zhou Yu, 2010, p.47).

2.2.3 Previous studies on the effects of other factors on L2 vocabulary acquisition

Over the past decade, Folse (2006) thinks that L2 vocabulary acquisition study has mainly made on the key areas, such as the learners, the words and the teachers.

A large number of studies has centered on which types of learning strategies have been employed by learners on vocabulary learning (Kojic-Saboamp; Lightbown, 1999;Lessard-Clouston, 1994; Nassaji, 2003; Prince, 1996; Sanaoui, 1995; Schmitt amp; Schmitt, 1993), whether learners' proficiency levels influence the results of word gains (Kim, 2008; Prince, 1996) as well as how L2 learners' vocabularies accumulate and develop (Laufer, 1998; Laufer amp; Paribakht, 1998; Parry, 1993; Schmitt, 1998).

Vocabulary, an essential component that affects learners' attainment of a second language, has also received recognition as to how many words learners need to master (Hulstijn et al.,1996) and which words mean a lot to learners that they should know (Coxhead, 2000; Liu, 2003). Research has also examined whether intrinsic properties of word influence acquisition, such as concreteness of words (de Groot amp; Keijzer, 2000; Pichette et al., 2012).

Lots of studies focus on the motivation of EFL learner’s learning vocabulary. The development of L2 vocabulary is decided by EFL learner’s need for learning vocabulary (Nation, 1999). The acquisition of L2 vocabulary goes into cognition level, while the acquisition of psychological vocabulary is the key to reveal secrets of the acquisition of L2 word vocabulary. It is more beneficial to acquiring vocabulary through the way of speaking or writing vocabulary than listening or taking (Ellis, 1999). Studies on L2 vocabulary acquisition not only pay attention to EFL learner’s quantity of acquiring L2 vocabulary, efficiency and forgetting rate, but also track the whole process of development of L2 vocabulary (Sehmitt, 1998).

2.3 Problems in the previous studies

From the above review, it can be concluded that all the above professional researches are of value in demonstrating the roles of different factors in vocabulary acquisition. Moreover, they provoke a perspective to analyze the issue from different views and therefore, offer a solid foundation for latter L2 word studies. However, some limitations in them warrant further researches on the issue.

Though some studies have been developed among the influences of individual differences on L2 word meanings acquisition, most of them focus on EFL learners’ L2 vocabulary, individual characteristics and learning motivations. Much fewer researches have been carried out on analysis of effects of different L2 proficiency levels on vocabulary acquisition. In order to perfect and consummate L2 vocabulary acquisition study, the element of different L2 language proficiency levels is supposed to be taken into consideration, which will enrich factors of individual differences so that research outcomes become more precise.

3. Methodology

3.1 Research questions

The current study is to find out the relationship among task type, EFL learners’ L2 proficiency and acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The research questions are as follows:

1. Is there any main effect of task type on L2 learners’ vocabulary acquisition?

2. Is there any main effect of L2 proficiency on their vocabulary acquisition?

3. Is there any interaction between task type and L2 proficiency on their vocabulary acquisition?

3.2 Subjects

Used in this study were 80 subjects from Nanjing Xiaozhuang University. These subjects were randomly chosen and served as participants.

The participants, coming from Jiangsu provinces, were native speakers of Chinese and shared the similar background of English learning. Therefore they were considered as English proficiency learners and could be regarded as representatives of Chinese English learners.

请支付后下载全文，论文总字数：42193字