基于二语语义通达水平的词汇翻译理解效应研究 ——对中国EFL学习者英—汉笔译过程中不同语义类型通达速度和质量的调查

论文摘要

本文旨在通过实验设计以及比较和描述的方法,考察中国高、低二语水平学习者对不同语义类型而产生的通达表现与词汇翻译理解之间的关系,是一项有关心理语言学的实证性研究。本研究探讨的主要问题是:1.中国高、低二语水平学习者在英-汉词汇翻译理解过程中就不同语义类型（英汉对译及英汉语义联想）在反应时和正确率方面表现出何种水平差异?2.这些基于不同语义类型（英汉对译及英汉语义联想）所表现出的水平差异给英-汉词汇翻译理解带来怎样的影响?3.通过启动实验测试,我们可知不同二语水平与语义通达机制之间存在怎样的关系?实验材料由四组英汉词对构成,分别为互为对译的英汉词对,非互为对译的英汉词对,互为语义联想的英汉词对,非互为语义联想的英汉词对。每组共24个英汉词对,各组在词频和词长上相互匹配。实验词汇均采自于高中英语教学大纲,词汇量在3000词以内,以确保高低二语水平者的受试不受到生词困扰而影响判断,保证测试的可信度。实验任务为在线词汇判断测试。实验一和实验二的词汇判断测试分别要求受试者尽快判断电脑屏幕上出现的英汉词对是否互为翻译对译词和语义联想词。每组词对在电脑上的呈现顺序具有随机性。受试的反应时间和正确率将由DMDX程序自动记录。本实验从大一非英语专业和英语专业研究生三年级学生中各抽30人,共60人,分别代表两个不同二语水平的英语学习者作为受试参加在线词汇判断测试,以获得第一手数据资料。本实验的数据由受试在作词汇判断时所表现出来的平均反应时（以毫秒计）和正确率构成,并由社科统计软件包（SPSS, 16.0版本）进行处理,主要采用重复测量方差分析和单因素方差分析两种统计方法。通过对实验数据的分析,本实验得出以下数据结果:1.平均反应时数据:两个不同二语水平组在判断英汉词对是否为翻译对译词时的反应都要明显快于判断英汉词对是否为语义联想词,并且二语低水平者在反应时间上受不同语义类型的影响大于二语高水平者。2.正确率数据:两个不同二语水平组在对英汉对译类型作判断所产生的正确率高于对英汉语义联想类型作判断时所产生的正确率,不同语义类型在正确率上对高二语水平组的影响要明显高于低二语水平组。通过对数据结果的讨论,本研究得出以下发现:1.对中国已是大学阶段的高、低二语水平者而言,当启动刺激与目标刺激是英汉对译关系时比当启动刺激与目标刺激是英汉语义联想关系时的反应时间短、正确率高。2.对中国已是大学阶段的英语学习者而言,当启动刺激与目标刺激之间是对译和语义联想关系时,高二语水平者对两种语义关系的反应时间都比二语低水平者短,正确率也比二语低水平者高。对双语者特别是二语低水平者而言,英汉对译语义关系的通达速度、通达准确率均强于英汉语义联想关系,这使其倾向于按照汉语对译词来理解英语词汇,较难做到按具体联想意义来理解二语词汇。文章最后指出了本研究的发现对外语词汇教学的启示作用。

论文目录

• 中文摘要
• Abstract
• Acknowledgement
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research Orientation
• 1.2 Rationale of the Present Study
• 1.3 Significance of the Present Study
• 1.4 Approaches to the Present Study
• 1.5 Content of the Remaining Chapters
• Chapter 2 Review of the Related Literature
• 2.1 Overview
• 2.2 The Bilingual Memory Representation
• 2.2.1 Two Levels of the Bilingual Memory Representation
• 2.2.2 Four Hypotheses （Models） of the L2 Semantic Access Mechanism
• 2.3 Wording in Translation
• 2.3.1 Classification of Word Meaning
• 2.3.2 The Importance of Wording in Translation
• 2.4 Previous Studies on the Bilingual Memory Representation and Word Translation
• 2.4.1 Translation Effects in Bilingual Memory Representation Study
• 2.4.2 Proficiency-related Issues in Bilingual Memory Representation and Word Translation Study
• 2.5 Summary
• Chapter 3 Theoretical framework
• 3.1 Overview
• 3.2 Theoretical foundations for the present study
• 3.2.1 Spreading Activation Model
• 3.2.2 The Distributed Lexical/Conceptual Feature Model
• 3.2.3 Cross-language priming
• 3.2.4 Semantic Meaning Types of Translation Equivalent and Semantic Association in Bilingual Memory Representation
• 3.2.5 The Cross-sectional Approach Employed in the Present Study
• 3.3 Theoretical Framework for the Present Study
• 3.4 Variables to be Investigated and Their Operational Definitions
• 3.5 Specific Research Questions
• 3.6 Research Assumptions for the Present Study
• Chapter 4 Research Methodology
• 4.1 Overview
• 4.2 Results of Experiment 1------Translation Equivalent Recognition
• 4.2.1 Research Purpose
• 4.2.2 Research Design
• 4.2.3 Participants
• 4.2.4 Test Materials
• 4.2.5 Apparatus in the Experiment
• 4.2.6 Procedures in the Experiment
• 4.2.7 Performance Measures
• 4.3 Results of Experiment 2------Semantic Association Recognition
• 4.3.1 Research purpose
• 4.3.2 Research Design
• 4.3.3 Participants
• 4.3.4 Test Materials
• 4.3.5 Apparatus in the Experiment
• 4.3.6 Procedures in the Experiment
• 4.3.7 Performance Measure
• Chapter 5 Results
• 5.1 Preliminary Analyses
• 5.2 Analyses on Response Time Data
• 5.2.1 Describing Mean Response Time Data
• 5.2.2 Analyses on Mean Response Time Data
• 5.2.3 Summary
• 5.3 Analyses on Accuracy Rate Data
• 5.3.1 Describing Mean Accuracy Rate Data
• 5.3.2 Analysis on Accuracy Rate Data
• 5.3.3 Summary
• Chapter 6 Findings and Discussions
• 6.1 Overview
• 6.2 Major Findings of the Present Study
• 6.3 Discussions of the Major Findings
• 6.3.1 Explaining Different Semantic Meaning Types’Response Times （RTs） Data
• 6.3.2 Explaining Different Semantic Meaning Types’Accuracy Rate Data
• 6.3.3 The Relationship between Foreign Language Proficiency and L2 Semantic Access Mechanism based on the Cross-language priming
• 6.4 Implications and Recommendations for Foreign Language Teaching
• 6.5 Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Further Research
• References
• Appendices
• Appendix Ⅰ Language Proficiency Assessment Test
• Appendix Ⅱ Test word pairs, together with the English word Frequency, Length Information