增进意识任务对EFL学习者习得“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构的影响

论文摘要

本篇论文旨在研究增进意识任务对于中国的英语学习者习得英语“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构的影响。文献中不乏对增进意识能促进第二语言学习的记载和论证。但是,对于不同程度的增进学习者对目标语结构意识的任务是否影响习得以及对“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构习得状况方面的研究甚少。本文基于此,做了如下的实验设计。本实验由三部分组成—一次前测、四种处理和两次后测。前测目标在于了解英语学习者对“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构的习得状况。后测一和后测二的目的分别在于调查增进意识任务对习得该结构的作用及其作用的持续度。首先对来自南方某大学大二非英语专业的学生受试（共131人）进行前测。受试来自四个班,这四个班被分成四个小组:前三个小组为实验组,第四个小组为控制组。前测后对四个小组进行不同增进意识任务的处理。小组一:明确的目标语结构的讲解和较多的增强输入的任务及练习任务;小组二:单一的增强输入任务;小组三:非增强输入任务;小组四:不接受增进意识的任务。对四个小组进行处理完以后,进行两次不同的后测。其中,后测一在处理完后立即进行,而后测二在后测一一个月后进行。在分析两次后测结果时,排除了各小组中被认为前测中就已经意识到“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构特点的受试,受试共有121人。对原始数据进行整理统计;通过单因素方差分析考察四个小组在前测和后测中是否存在差异。前测实验结果显示,受试对目标语结构的习得状况不佳（平均分为10.95） ;大部分受试都没有使用“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构中的小品词1。两次后测结果显示,实验组的习得状况比控制组好;在三个不同的实验组中,接受目标语结构讲解和较多的增强输入及练习任务的小组比其他两组的习得状况好;只接受的增强输入任务的小组比不接受增强输入任务的小组的习得状况好。单因素方差分析的前测结果显示,四个小组在对目标语结构的习得上为平行组,因此,后测中各小组成绩的变化归因于各自接受的处理。本研究弥补了对英语“动词+小品词1+小品词2”结构习得研究的空缺;证实了增进意识任务促进了对该结构的习得。本研究的结果支持注意假说;对英语学习者难于掌握目标语结构原因的探讨证明了对比分析理论的合理性;重新概念化是二语学习中的重要一步;在今后的语言教学中,应注意发展更多有效地增进学生对目标语结构的意识的方法以促进二语习得。

论文目录

• Abstract in Chinese
• Abstract in English
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• 1.1 Research Orientation and General Research Questions
• 1.2 Rationale of the Present Study
• 1.3 Organization of the Present Study
• Chapter 2 Literature Review
• 2.1 Theoretical Background
• 2.1.1 Consciousness and Consciousness-related Concepts
• 2.1.2 Consciousness-raising
• 2.1.2.1 The Concept of Consciousness-raising
• 2.1.2.2 Noticing Hypothesis and Information Processing Theory
• 2.1.2.3 Consciousness-raising in Second Language Acquisition
• 2.1.3 Consciousness-raising as an Instructional Task
• 2.1.3.1 Definition of Consciousness-raising Tasks
• 2.1.3.2 Classification of Consciousness-raising tasks
• 2.2 Previous Empirical Studies
• 2.2.1 Grammar Consciousness-raising
• 2.2.2 Input Enhancement
• 2.2.3 Interpretation Task
• 2.2.4 Focused Communication Task
• 2.3 Verb+Particles Constructions
• 2.3.1 Previous Studies on Verb+Particles Constructions
• 2.3.2 A Contrastive Analysis of the English V+P1+P2 Constructions and its Chinese Functional Equivalents
• 2.4 Limitations of Research Literature and Research Questions for the Present Study
• Chapter 3 Methodology
• 3.1 Subjects
• 3.2 Materials
• 3.3 Procedure
• 3.4 Scoring
• 3.5 Data Analysis
• Chapter 4 Experimental Results
• 4.1 Answer to the First Question
• 4.2 Answer to the Second Question
• 4.2.1 Four Parallel Groups before Posttests
• 4.2.2 Differences between the Control Group and the Experimental Groups in Posttests
• 4.2.2.1 Differences between the Control Group and the Experimental Groups in Posttest One
• 4.2.2.2 Differences between the Control Group and the Experimental Groups in Posttest Two
• 4.3 Answer to the Third Question
• 4.3.1 Differences between and among Experimental Groups in Posttest One
• 4.3.2 Differences between and among Experimental Groups in Posttest Two
• 4.4 Acquisition of Excluded Subjects
• 4.5 Summary
• Chapter 5 Discussion
• 5.1 Discussion of the Results of Question One
• 5.1.1 Results of Pretest
• 5.1.2 Reasons for These Findings
• 5.2 Discussion of the Results of Question Two
• 5.2.1 Results of Posttests
• 5.2.2 Reasons for These Findings
• 5.3 Discussion of the Results of Question Three
• 5.3.1 Findings
• 5.3.2 Discussion of the Findings
• 5.4 Discussion of difference between Posttest One and Posttest Two
• Conclusion
• Main Findings
• Implications
• Limitations of the Present Study and Suggestions for Pedagogy and Future Study
• References
• Acknowledgements
• Appendix A 攻读学位期间所发表的学术论文目录
• Appendix B Testing Materials Used in Pretest
• Appendix C Treatment Materials Used for Group One
• Appendix D Treatment Materials Used for Group Two
• Appendix E Treatment Materials Used for Group Three
• Appendix F Testing Materials Used in Posttest One
• Appendix G Testing Materials Used in Posttest Two
• Appendix H 详细中文摘要