【摘要】 近年來(lái),為了使課堂輸入更加有助于學(xué)生的二語(yǔ)習(xí)得,研究者們開(kāi)始探究操控和強(qiáng)化課堂輸入會(huì)帶來(lái)的顯性影響和隱性影響。本實(shí)證研究以Alanen(1995),Sayuri(2000),Izumi(2002)和Kim(2003)為參考,通過(guò)改進(jìn)實(shí)驗(yàn)設(shè)計(jì),意在考察三種不同的輸入強(qiáng)化模式對(duì)高中生二語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)中注意和掌握英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)產(chǎn)生何種影響。三種不同的輸入強(qiáng)化模式為書(shū)面強(qiáng)化、輸入闡釋以及背誦。本研究試圖回答以下兩個(gè)研究問(wèn)題：(1)輸入強(qiáng)化在吸引學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)的注意和促進(jìn)學(xué)習(xí)者掌握英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)兩方面是否比普通教學(xué)方式更加有效?(2)書(shū)面強(qiáng)化、輸入闡釋以及背誦這三種輸入強(qiáng)化模式中,哪一種輸入強(qiáng)化模式能最有效地促進(jìn)學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)的即時(shí)習(xí)得和最終掌握?被試是湖南一所普通高中高三的學(xué)生。本實(shí)驗(yàn)涉及該校228名學(xué)生。其中210名受試者經(jīng)過(guò)前測(cè)之后被任意地分配為四個(gè)小組：書(shū)面強(qiáng)化組閱讀己將目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ)進(jìn)行加粗字體處理的文章；輸入闡釋組閱讀包含目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ)的具體闡釋的文章；背誦組被先要求背誦一些習(xí)語(yǔ)(包含目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ))及其釋義,然后閱讀既無(wú)書(shū)面強(qiáng)化也無(wú)輸入闡釋的文章；控制組只讀既無(wú)書(shū)面強(qiáng)化也無(wú)輸入闡釋的文章(包含目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ))。整個(gè)實(shí)驗(yàn)由預(yù)實(shí)驗(yàn)、前測(cè)、輸入、即時(shí)關(guān)注測(cè)試、即時(shí)習(xí)得測(cè)試、最終習(xí)得測(cè)試幾個(gè)部分組成。受試在各次測(cè)試中的成績(jī)被輸入SPSS13.0進(jìn)行對(duì)比分析,最終結(jié)論如下：(1)三種輸入強(qiáng)化模式對(duì)學(xué)習(xí)者注意和最終掌握英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)均產(chǎn)生了明顯的促進(jìn)效果；(2)背誦在促進(jìn)學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)的注意和即時(shí)習(xí)得方面明顯優(yōu)于輸入闡釋和書(shū)面強(qiáng)化；輸入闡釋在促進(jìn)學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)英語(yǔ)習(xí)語(yǔ)的最終掌握方面優(yōu)于背誦和書(shū)面強(qiáng)化；書(shū)面強(qiáng)化雖然在吸引學(xué)習(xí)者注意目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ)方面具有促進(jìn)作用,但是在促進(jìn)學(xué)習(xí)者對(duì)目標(biāo)習(xí)語(yǔ)的最終習(xí)得方面并沒(méi)有起到預(yù)先設(shè)想的作用。最后,作者從輸入的明確度、目的語(yǔ)特點(diǎn)、學(xué)習(xí)者有限的注意力資源和信息處理等方面對(duì)實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果進(jìn)行了分析和解釋。最后闡述了本研究在理論和教學(xué)上的啟示,指出了本研究的局限性并對(duì)以后的研究提出了一些建議。
 
【關(guān)鍵詞】 輸入強(qiáng)化； 注意； 習(xí)得； 習(xí)語(yǔ)；

Chapter One Literature Review

1.1 Relevant Studies on the Noticing Effects of Input Enhancement
This section intends to review the previous studies which havedemonstrated both positive and negative effects of different types of inputenhancement techniques on noticing the target linguistic item. Although theoretical assumptions are useful for providing insightsinto SLA, it is only through empirical studies that they are validated. Sofar, a large amount of empirical research has been carried out in order toclarify the roles of input enhancement techniques in promoting learners'noticing of the target linguistic forms. Some studies reviewed as the following yielded results that supportpositive effects of Textual Enhancement on grammar learning (Doughty,1991; Shook, 1994; Alanen, 1995; Jourdenais et al.，1995; White, 1998).However, the remaining failed to reach the same conclusion (Leow, 1997,2001; Jourdenais, 1998; Izumi, 2002; Leow et al., 2003; Overstreet, 1998,2002; Wong, 2003). Some researchers pointed out that TextualEnhancement alone might not be sufficient for interlanguagedevelopment and argued that other supplementary instructional elementsshould be added to this technique.In 1994，Shook examined the effects of Textual Enhancement ofgrammatical information on learners' intake of two linguistic items, withrespect to the Spanish present perfect as well as the relative pronouns que/quien. 125 second and fourth-semester college students participatedin the study. To begin with, they were divided into two groups: the firstgroup was exposed to the intact text while the second received the sametext but with the target linguistic items highlighted by typographicalcues (uppercasing and bolding). Exactly, the exposure lasted less than anhour, after which a multiple-choice recognition task and a writtenfill-in-blank production were used to measure subjects' intake. As theresult shows, the data collected at the end of the treatment indicated asignificant out-performance of the enhanced group over the unenhancedgroup on all the evaluation tasks.
………..

1.2 Relevant Studies on the Acquisition Effects of Input Enhancement
There are many claims in the SLA literature that researches hasfound Input Enhancement instruction beneficial. Those researchersadvocate the Noticing Hypothesis as ecidence for their argument.However, in order to support such claims, we must go for a study to showthat benefits are not restricted to be period immediately followingthe instruction. Otherwise the benefits may be "knowledge temporarilyretained at a conscious level but not fully acquired" in the words ofLightbown et al.(1980: 166). This knowledge is distinct from actualknowledge of language, as shown in studies that tested learners both onfollow-up tasks and in more natural, uncontrolled contests (Fuller, 1978;Pica, 1985; Ellis, 1987; McDonald et al., 1987; Kadia, 1988; Green andHecht, 1992; Frantzen, 1995). In each of the studies, performancedropped significantly (even dramatically) with a switch from artificial,nonspontaneous situations to normal spontaneous use.Thus, learners' success in the noticing tests does not necessarilyimply that they have acquired actual knowledge of language. The needfor long-term follow-up is brought up by studies that found benefitsimmediately following instruction but none when follow-up testing wasdone (Lightbown et al., 1980; Lightbown, 1983; 1985; 1987; Weinert,1987; Harley, 1989; White, 1991),These results indicate a failure ofinstruction to affect the underlying language system, a failure that wasonly apparent some days after instruction was completed, so the need forfollow-up is clear.

………..

Chapter Two Theoretic Basis

2.1 The Input Hypothesis
As we all know, input has played an important role in SLA. SusanGass (1997), a famous scholar in SLA theory and research, believes thatthe concept of input is probably the single most important concept of SLAand no individual can learn L2 without input of some sort. As a matter offact, "no model of SLA does not avail itself of input in trying to explainhow learners create L2 grammars" (Gass, 1997, p.l). Toady, all theoriesin SLA research consider input an important role in how learners generatelinguistic systems. As one of the important theoretical constructs in SLA,input has been accorded an important explanatory variable in L2development.Several aspects of input have been explored in the SLA literature:comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), incomprehensible input (L. White,1987), apperceived input and comprehended input (Gass, 1988)，revealing the importance of input comprehension in SLA.With respect to input research in SLA, it is the Input Hypothesis,proposed by Stephen Krashen, that has been most influential and receivedmost attention. The Input Hypothesis states that "humans acquirelanguage in only one way, by understanding messages, or by receiving'comprehensible input'...We move from i, our current level, to i+1, thenext level along the natural order, by understanding input containing i+1"(Krashen, 1985, p.2). It claims that exposure to comprehensible input isboth necessary and sufficient for second language learning to take place.
………….

本文編號(hào)：8799